[besson3c]

I've been going back and watching the Star Trek movies with my wife, many of them I have never seen before.

It's really interesting how movie making techniques change, how clichés change and come and go, and what sort of mental involvement is required of the viewer. The Star Trek movies are interesting, I think, because they sort of take you through a tour through movie making...

You have the original, which to me is modeled after 2001: A Space Odessy - more of an artistic sort of movie than the later movies, and less campy. Later on, you had movies like Voyage Home which just screamed feel-good 80s movie, and then finally the Undiscovered Country which screamed 90s feel good movie that seemed like more of a Next Generation movie in some respects. You had the slow clap at the end, everybody smiling at each other at the end, etc. As the series went on a lot of techniques and ideas were stolen from Star Wars as well.

My wife has tried to explain to me US history a little, and how political and environmental conditions in the country sort of led to people wanting simpler, easier forms of entertainment than the sort of hippy movement thought provoking stuff of the earlier generation. As fun as movies from the 80s and 90s can be, many are almost painful to look at today - full of cheese, simplicity, very campy, etc.

It seems like story telling techniques of modern times are a little fragmented. You have movies/stories that demand a lot from their viewers, stuff like Battlestar Galactica, the Sopranos, some of the George Cloony movies like Syriana, The Dark Knight, and several TV series. Even the action movies are a little more involved such as the Bourne movies, the last two James Bond movies, etc. I'd say that the most recent Star Trek movie is much closer to this sort of thing than any of the previous ones. However, you also have really light hearted brain dead simple type movies such as Transformers, Terminator, etc. It seems like there is no set way to tell stories in today's age, just like there is no set music that we listen to, everything is sort of anything goes, and like I said, fragmented...

I'm wondering, what do you think are good examples of movies that really defied all movie making clichés of its era, sort of stood out as being quite different in a successful way, movies that when you watched it you weren't thinking "okay, this is definitely a movie from the 70s/80s/90s/whatever"?

Perhaps what I'm really asking is what movies revolutionized movie making? After all, it seems like after a movie like this is successful, it spawns several copycats. For instance, I don't know if Memento was the first of its kind, but I see similarities between it and Pulp Fiction, and of course many movie franchises are going ga ga over making everything into prequels now. Was Batman Begins one of the first really successful prequels?

Any thoughts? Votes for really stand out movies as described above?

[ghporter]

I take exception to a lot of what you said about the Star Trek movies. "The Motion Picture" was NOT modeled on "2001," in any way. It was supposed to be grand and huge, in keeping with what Paramount felt was "worthy of a motion picture." During production it grew and became a bit unwieldy, but it was still always planned as a HUGE Star Trek story. While your characterization of "Voyage Home" and "Undiscovered Country" as 80s and 90s "feel good movies" is deserved, you should note that these films helped establish what such a film should be...

To suggest that Roddenberry and company "stole ideas from Star Wars" is ludicrous, especially since George based Star Wars and its backstory on an enormous pile of existing literature. HE "stole" the concept of archetypes and certain kinds of stories and story elements from past works, much like a whole lot of "modern" fiction is based on Greek classics, Shakespear, and so on. The only thing that Star Wars had to do with ST:TMP, for example, was to get Paramount to shift from developing a new TV series to developing a "major motion picture."

Our perceptions of "what makes a successful movie" are always "after the fact," (unless we're actually developing and making those films), and that means that we synthesize the story and production with what is going on when we see the movie. One thing that made "The Dark Knight" as successful as it was is the political and social tone of the time it was released. A hero that was willing to be seen as a villain for the good of society was a very good concept, particularly at that moment in time. On the other hand, Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight" graphic novel has yet to see the screen; it's just as dark, but it involves concepts like "passing the torch" and just how low a society can sink and still be a society. I doubt it will be filmed anytime soon, even though it's a fantastically strong story (and of course it's already storyboarded).

Now, "revolutionizing" movie making can be a lot of things. "Terminator," for example, revolutionized through using old, established techniques to do something amazing on a fairly tiny budget. Stan Winston's puppets, for example, allowed Cameron to film the T800 endoskeleton ON LOCATION rather than have to composite those shots-saving a lot of time and money while improving the way the shots looked immensely. Such puppets were not new then by any means. Kubric employed hundreds of people to hand draw photographic mattes for the composite shots of spacecraft in "2001," because the "quick and cheap" bluescreen method was not up to the challenge of getting the right, "real" look he wanted. He did a LOT of in-camera compositing, a lot of locked-down camera moves, copied techniques from "Royal Wedding" to get the Discovery's centrifuge shots, and basically applied the best techniques available, implemented by the best people available. The only "new" thing he used, to my knowledge, was retroflective material for some front projection effects (the news pads on Discovery, for example).

What turns out to be "revolutionary," is still how the viewing audience perceives the film. We were in love with the space program in 1968, and that helped get "2001" seen. But the high quality of the writing, production, acting, editing and so on are what kept people seeing it, and what keep people seeing the film today, 45 years after Kubric first contacted Clarke about filming "the stereotypical 'good' science fiction movie."

[subego]

Chinatown fits your "timeless" definition.

Staying with a China theme, early John Woo films (notably The Killer) pretty much rewrote how action is done.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon did the same, but I'm still looking for how that was different than all the other period wire-fu which preceded it, beyond getting play in American theaters.

Past this, I've got brain-lock.

[ghporter]

Chinatown was great because of how real Polanski made it seem. Very much a "timeless" film. I think the difference between "Crouching" and Wu's (and others') earlier films was production values and level of spectacle; all that flying kicked things up a couple of notches, and it was so well done that it allowed viewers to fall into the story without having to work at "suspension of disbelief."

And obviously I can't think of other films myself either...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I take exception to a lot of what you said about the Star Trek movies. "The Motion Picture" was NOT modeled on "2001," in any way. It was supposed to be grand and huge, in keeping with what Paramount felt was "worthy of a motion picture." During production it grew and became a bit unwieldy, but it was still always planned as a HUGE Star Trek story. While your characterization of "Voyage Home" and "Undiscovered Country" as 80s and 90s "feel good movies" is deserved, you should note that these films helped establish what such a film should be...

I didn't say that these movies were bad (I enjoyed them), and being modeled after 2001 was speculative on my part, but I do see far more similarities there than I did with the later films.

To suggest that Roddenberry and company "stole ideas from Star Wars" is ludicrous, especially since George based Star Wars and its backstory on an enormous pile of existing literature. HE "stole" the concept of archetypes and certain kinds of stories and story elements from past works, much like a whole lot of "modern" fiction is based on Greek classics, Shakespear, and so on. The only thing that Star Wars had to do with ST:TMP, for example, was to get Paramount to shift from developing a new TV series to developing a "major motion picture."

The feel was very Star Warsian in places, particularly when they'd be in public places like conferences and at federation headquarters where there were all sorts of random aliens with funny faces. Any one of those aliens could have been right out of that scene in Jedi w. Jabba the Hut or at one of those space bars, or whatever. This feel was much different than, say, Total Recall or Bladerunner which was far darker.

Our perceptions of "what makes a successful movie" are always "after the fact," (unless we're actually developing and making those films), and that means that we synthesize the story and production with what is going on when we see the movie. One thing that made "The Dark Knight" as successful as it was is the political and social tone of the time it was released. A hero that was willing to be seen as a villain for the good of society was a very good concept, particularly at that moment in time. On the other hand, Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight" graphic novel has yet to see the screen; it's just as dark, but it involves concepts like "passing the torch" and just how low a society can sink and still be a society. I doubt it will be filmed anytime soon, even though it's a fantastically strong story (and of course it's already storyboarded).

Interesting, I didn't know there was a Frank Miller graphic novel called the Dark Knight. I'll have to look into that.

Now, "revolutionizing" movie making can be a lot of things. "Terminator," for example, revolutionized through using old, established techniques to do something amazing on a fairly tiny budget.

I should have been clearer. Revolutionized can most definitely be parsed in terms of technological devices and effects used as a part of storytelling. The medium is the message. I think you could go back and fairly easily list first times in the special effects department (e.g. Willow was the first time that morphing was used, etc.). I was thinking more in terms of story telling strategies though, such as Memento/Pulp Fiction where the story moves in reverse chronological order, etc. or movies with a narrative, feel, environment, or subtext that just seems out of place in placed against other movies of that era.

Also clarification #2: in my post I was referring to the most recent Teminator movie not requiring much of the viewer. It was, in my opinion, dreck.

Kubric employed hundreds of people to hand draw photographic mattes for the composite shots of spacecraft in "2001," because the "quick and cheap" bluescreen method was not up to the challenge of getting the right, "real" look he wanted. He did a LOT of in-camera compositing, a lot of locked-down camera moves, copied techniques from "Royal Wedding" to get the Discovery's centrifuge shots, and basically applied the best techniques available, implemented by the best people available. The only "new" thing he used, to my knowledge, was retroflective material for some front projection effects (the news pads on Discovery, for example).

Very interesting! I didn't know this either, thanks for sharing!

What turns out to be "revolutionary," is still how the viewing audience perceives the film. We were in love with the space program in 1968, and that helped get "2001" seen. But the high quality of the writing, production, acting, editing and so on are what kept people seeing it, and what keep people seeing the film today, 45 years after Kubric first contacted Clarke about filming "the stereotypical 'good' science fiction movie."

Not only this, but it seems to spawn all sorts of copycats. When I was a kid for some reason I enjoyed the movie King Solomon's Mines. I watched it again as an adult, and it completely sucked. My wife honestly thought it was a spoof of Indiana Jones, but I don't think it was trying to be a spoof, just a very bad copy.

So, this thread could also be about these sorts of movies that sort of start new trends too.

One shoe-in is the first 3D movie, which I think was Toy Story?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

One shoe-in is the first 3D movie, which I think was Toy Story?

Hold on there! They were doing 3D movies in the 1950s. Toy Story was groundbreaking in a lot of ways, and a 3D version, all computer animated, (even if they did the 3D after the fact) was a great idea. But there were tons of science fiction movies in the 50s that were made in 3D. So unless you're talking about "the first computer animated 3D movie," then maybe you should frame your thought more specifically.

[besson3c]

Yeah, I meant 3D computer movie, sorry... Not 3D glasses movie.

Speaking of revolutionize, it looks like the 3D (glasses) movie is back!

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yeah, I meant 3D computer movie, sorry... Not 3D glasses movie.

Speaking of revolutionize, it looks like the 3D (glasses) movie is back!

Yes, let's not minimize the amazingness that is Captain EO!

[Brien]

That movie scared the crap out of me as a kid. I couldn't set foot in Tomorrowland without crying...

[BadKosh]

The different Trek movies all had different directors, and as such were made with vastly different processes. Robert Wise was called in to re-vamp ST-TMP after a horrid start, poor SPFX, and a crappy script. TWOK was the best of the motion pictures, and had pretty good SPFX for the time. The rest went down hill due to lousy scripts, stupid producers and studio Mgmt. The TNG movies were even more lame. The SPFX were progressing, as that would be expected as technology improved. The Director, and Camera crews and finally the editors and second units contributions all make or break a movie. The Trek Movies needed better directors, and stories.

[Eug]

Out of the all the ST movies, I liked the tone of The Motion Picture the best. Too bad the script sucked, as did much of the editing.

I still think of Voyage Home as "Disney does Star Trek".

My favourite of the bunch was Khan, because it didn't overdo the camp or feelgoodness, and had such strong roles as... well... Khan. However, I still liked the grand tone of The Motion Picture better.

TMP tried to be grand and failed. Khan aimed much lower and succeeded.

Originally Posted by subego 

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon did the same, but I'm still looking for how that was different than all the other period wire-fu which preceded it, beyond getting play in American theaters.

CTHD did comparatively poorly in Asia because it was a rehash of much of the existing stuff, but with a couple of actors who couldn't speak Mandarin properly for a Mandarin-language movie.

The best part of CTHD was that was slicker than 99% of other wire-fu movies out there (even though I thought the wire-fu was overdone), and it had Ang Lee's name attached to it.

P.S. My favourite martial arts movie of all time is Hero. In fact, it's the most beautiful movie I have ever seen in any genre, and actually is one of my favourite movies of all time from any genre too.

[besson3c]

I forgot to mention Teen Wolf. It should be on my list.

[Shaddim]

I didn't like CTHD when it came out, but over time it grew on me. Now, I'm quite fond of it, and that genre in general (Hero was just amazing).

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Eug 

P.S. My favourite martial arts movie of all time is Hero. In fact, it's the most beautiful movie I have ever seen in any genre, and actually is one of my favourite movies of all time from any genre too.

I couldn't agree more.