Star Trek Beyond
- Thread starter Bryancd
- Start date
Riceball
Master Member
Re: New STAR TREK 3
That's good to hear, I can't stand his work. Now I have hope for Star trek 3 being decent, no Orci and no Lindeloff (ever) means that there's less chance of this movie being crap.
That's good to hear, I can't stand his work. Now I have hope for Star trek 3 being decent, no Orci and no Lindeloff (ever) means that there's less chance of this movie being crap.
ghostryder
Legendary Member
Re: New STAR TREK 3
It's funny looking at the "Star Trek Court" picture and noting how by the third film, it's pretty different.
Bryan Burk isn't listed to return.
JJ Abrams has Star Wars. Will remain as producer.
Alex Kurtzman is off doing Spiderman junk.
Damon Lindelof left because everyone realized he took the advice "Don't even try to do Khan" figuratively.
Roberto Orci tried to up his position, but failed. His writing position still uncertain, though he will remain as producer.
A change in staff can be a very good thing, but the whole "____ will remain as producer" kind of destroys any notion that this will be a "The Wrath of Khan" kind of change up. This is more akin to "Star Trek: Nemesis" change where everyone was thrown out of the creative process except for the film's producer, Rick Berman. The Wrath of Khan's change of crew was far more drastic. Gene Roddenberry, the man who created Star Trek and produced TMP (Which successful if not a nightmare to actually make) was booted from the Producer's position and for good reason. TWOK had different writers, different director, different producers, ect. Roberto Orci's comments come off less as a reassurance and more of a declaration saying "Now no one with talent or critical thinking will interfere with my vision!"
With that said, I'm through with this thread. I will however remain as producer.
It's funny looking at the "Star Trek Court" picture and noting how by the third film, it's pretty different.
Bryan Burk isn't listed to return.
JJ Abrams has Star Wars. Will remain as producer.
Alex Kurtzman is off doing Spiderman junk.
Damon Lindelof left because everyone realized he took the advice "Don't even try to do Khan" figuratively.
Roberto Orci tried to up his position, but failed. His writing position still uncertain, though he will remain as producer.
A change in staff can be a very good thing, but the whole "____ will remain as producer" kind of destroys any notion that this will be a "The Wrath of Khan" kind of change up. This is more akin to "Star Trek: Nemesis" change where everyone was thrown out of the creative process except for the film's producer, Rick Berman. The Wrath of Khan's change of crew was far more drastic. Gene Roddenberry, the man who created Star Trek and produced TMP (Which successful if not a nightmare to actually make) was booted from the Producer's position and for good reason. TWOK had different writers, different director, different producers, ect. Roberto Orci's comments come off less as a reassurance and more of a declaration saying "Now no one with talent or critical thinking will interfere with my vision!"
With that said, I'm through with this thread. I will however remain as producer.
Re: New STAR TREK 3
I honestly care less about who directs it than who writes it. Everyone seems to forget that Star Trek was supposed to be closer to serious s/f -- even if it didn't always get very close to that mark. >_> Point is, you shouldn't have to turn your brain off to be able to enjoy a Trek show or film. Quite the opposite. It's supposed to make you think. nuTrek has been about the dumbest Trek ever. I'd go so far as to say worse than "Spock's Brain". The science in Trek'09 is atrocious. The motivations for most of the characters was utterly absent. And I don't think any amount of suspension of disbelief can gloss over a cadet, on academic suspension, being promoted directly to Captain and given command of Starfleet's flagship.
Into Darkness just kept kicking me out of the experience. Parking the Enterprise under an ocean was visually stunning, yes. And also took everything I had to not yell "Oh, come on!" in a crowded theater. The nods to TWOK were so heavy-handed I felt like I was getting a shiatsu massage. Everyone in the theater who knew TWOK was laughing as Kirk went to his certain doom and Spock flipped out over his friend's death. And everyone who hadn't seen it cuz they were too young or whatever had no idea about the references. Either way, everyone knew Kirk wouldn't die and there was no tension at all. And special mention here for the dead-horse issue of the very non-Central-Asian Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan. As good as he is from going from mild to scenery-chewing, I had been so hoping he'd be Gary Mitchell.
This is the short version. I could go on at much length about everything in those two films that didn't work (with, I'll be generous, a couple paragraphs about the elements that worked -- mostly the good cast decisions and acting), from a Trek standpoint and from a general storytelling standpoint. As much as everyone pans TFF, my problems with it stem most from studio interference and Shatner having to revise and re-revise the latter half of the film multiple times as his budget kept getting trimmed. That and ILM not doing the effects. The story was good. The characters were great. The dialogue and interaction was some of the best TOS Trek out there. We finally got to see the Starfleet Marines, we got new gorgeous phasers, that red alert klaxon is my favorite version, etc. So, no, I wouldn't object to Shatner directing.
Looking at films over the past decade or so and considering my nearly-lifelong appreciation of and immersion into Trek... *thinks* ...I like Frakes. He knows Trek. But he'd have to not direct it like a glorified TV episode. I'd kinda like to see what Mendes could do with it, but he's busy with Bond. I think Gunn would definitely not suck at Trek. I think I'd actually most like to see what Edgar Wright could do with it, though.
--Jonah
I honestly care less about who directs it than who writes it. Everyone seems to forget that Star Trek was supposed to be closer to serious s/f -- even if it didn't always get very close to that mark. >_> Point is, you shouldn't have to turn your brain off to be able to enjoy a Trek show or film. Quite the opposite. It's supposed to make you think. nuTrek has been about the dumbest Trek ever. I'd go so far as to say worse than "Spock's Brain". The science in Trek'09 is atrocious. The motivations for most of the characters was utterly absent. And I don't think any amount of suspension of disbelief can gloss over a cadet, on academic suspension, being promoted directly to Captain and given command of Starfleet's flagship.
Into Darkness just kept kicking me out of the experience. Parking the Enterprise under an ocean was visually stunning, yes. And also took everything I had to not yell "Oh, come on!" in a crowded theater. The nods to TWOK were so heavy-handed I felt like I was getting a shiatsu massage. Everyone in the theater who knew TWOK was laughing as Kirk went to his certain doom and Spock flipped out over his friend's death. And everyone who hadn't seen it cuz they were too young or whatever had no idea about the references. Either way, everyone knew Kirk wouldn't die and there was no tension at all. And special mention here for the dead-horse issue of the very non-Central-Asian Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan. As good as he is from going from mild to scenery-chewing, I had been so hoping he'd be Gary Mitchell.
This is the short version. I could go on at much length about everything in those two films that didn't work (with, I'll be generous, a couple paragraphs about the elements that worked -- mostly the good cast decisions and acting), from a Trek standpoint and from a general storytelling standpoint. As much as everyone pans TFF, my problems with it stem most from studio interference and Shatner having to revise and re-revise the latter half of the film multiple times as his budget kept getting trimmed. That and ILM not doing the effects. The story was good. The characters were great. The dialogue and interaction was some of the best TOS Trek out there. We finally got to see the Starfleet Marines, we got new gorgeous phasers, that red alert klaxon is my favorite version, etc. So, no, I wouldn't object to Shatner directing.
Looking at films over the past decade or so and considering my nearly-lifelong appreciation of and immersion into Trek... *thinks* ...I like Frakes. He knows Trek. But he'd have to not direct it like a glorified TV episode. I'd kinda like to see what Mendes could do with it, but he's busy with Bond. I think Gunn would definitely not suck at Trek. I think I'd actually most like to see what Edgar Wright could do with it, though.
--Jonah
Re: New STAR TREK 3
Since these movies are all we're going to get when it comes to new content for Star Trek, don't expect the story format to change at all. Kirk and Spock are going to argue with one another, realize they're good friends and like each other in the end. Some bad guy wants to attack Earth and our heroes have to stop him. Every character who is not Kirk or Spock will be given a moment in the spot light to show that even though the writers haven't abandoned the characters, they will never, be given the opportunity to carry their own story.
Basically, Star Trek needs to go back into syndication. It needs to be able to tell multiple stories over a season rather than one story every two to four years. When your franchise is 'stuck' with that one story, you better believe it will be a story focused on pleasing the crowd than telling a story. Look at The Trouble with Tribbles, Balance of Terror, The Naked Now, The Conscience of the King, The Devil in the Dark, The Tholian Web. All episodes use a different genre to tell it's own unique story. Action, comedy, drama, suspense and even horror. You can get away with telling a Star Trek story that fits in only one of these genres. With these movies, It's all a mix. We have to have the drama, we have to have the comedy and we have to have the action because Star Trek has done it. It just hasn't done them all at once, and that's a bit of a problem. It can't be one thing, it has to be all of them in one sitting.
Since these movies are all we're going to get when it comes to new content for Star Trek, don't expect the story format to change at all. Kirk and Spock are going to argue with one another, realize they're good friends and like each other in the end. Some bad guy wants to attack Earth and our heroes have to stop him. Every character who is not Kirk or Spock will be given a moment in the spot light to show that even though the writers haven't abandoned the characters, they will never, be given the opportunity to carry their own story.
Basically, Star Trek needs to go back into syndication. It needs to be able to tell multiple stories over a season rather than one story every two to four years. When your franchise is 'stuck' with that one story, you better believe it will be a story focused on pleasing the crowd than telling a story. Look at The Trouble with Tribbles, Balance of Terror, The Naked Now, The Conscience of the King, The Devil in the Dark, The Tholian Web. All episodes use a different genre to tell it's own unique story. Action, comedy, drama, suspense and even horror. You can get away with telling a Star Trek story that fits in only one of these genres. With these movies, It's all a mix. We have to have the drama, we have to have the comedy and we have to have the action because Star Trek has done it. It just hasn't done them all at once, and that's a bit of a problem. It can't be one thing, it has to be all of them in one sitting.
Re: New STAR TREK 3
JJ not directing will be a big help too. I got a chuckle when i saw a petition started by fans to get Jonathon Frakes to direct this movie, honestly it probably would be a more fun movie than the first two and at least he knows Trek even if it's just next gen.
JJ not directing will be a big help too. I got a chuckle when i saw a petition started by fans to get Jonathon Frakes to direct this movie, honestly it probably would be a more fun movie than the first two and at least he knows Trek even if it's just next gen.
astroboy
Master Member
Re: New STAR TREK 3
You know, in retrospect, JJ never even had to do the alternate timeline thing. He didn't even have to reboot the series. Because, we've never seen the first few years of kirk aboard the enterprise. If he just stayed in that timeframe he could have done whatever he wanted.
However, that would have involved creativity. New planets. New species. Exploration.
It would have involved everything that star trek was about. Instead he decided to blow up the home worlds' of both the vulcans and the romulans
You know, in retrospect, JJ never even had to do the alternate timeline thing. He didn't even have to reboot the series. Because, we've never seen the first few years of kirk aboard the enterprise. If he just stayed in that timeframe he could have done whatever he wanted.
However, that would have involved creativity. New planets. New species. Exploration.
It would have involved everything that star trek was about. Instead he decided to blow up the home worlds' of both the vulcans and the romulans
Re: New STAR TREK 3
Well, problem is, either you can show the maiden voyage of the Enterprise, or you can show the first year of a thirty-something-year-old Kirk's command of said ship, or you can show Kirk's time at the Academy. Not all three. Unless you do an alternate timeline.
--Jonah
Well, problem is, either you can show the maiden voyage of the Enterprise, or you can show the first year of a thirty-something-year-old Kirk's command of said ship, or you can show Kirk's time at the Academy. Not all three. Unless you do an alternate timeline.
--Jonah
Zombie_61
Master Member
Re: New STAR TREK 3
Using the alternate timeline to reboot the franchise was, presumably, a way for them to free themselves from the previously established canon so that they could have all of the original series' characters on the bridge of the Enterprise under Kirk's command, and so they could tell new stories. That's not such a bad idea...in theory. Unfortunately, so far they've given us time travel, a battle with a Romulan ship, Leonard Nimoy reprising his role as Spock, a brief glimpse of Klingons, Khan Noonien Singh, and lines of dialogue stolen from a previous movie. They're not exactly going where no man has gone before, are they? :facepalm
Except that the original series crew wouldn't have been on the Enterprise during Kirk's first years on the ship. According to the previously established canon McCoy, Sulu, and Uhura didn't become members of the Enterprise's crew until one to two years after Kirk took command.
Using the alternate timeline to reboot the franchise was, presumably, a way for them to free themselves from the previously established canon so that they could have all of the original series' characters on the bridge of the Enterprise under Kirk's command, and so they could tell new stories. That's not such a bad idea...in theory. Unfortunately, so far they've given us time travel, a battle with a Romulan ship, Leonard Nimoy reprising his role as Spock, a brief glimpse of Klingons, Khan Noonien Singh, and lines of dialogue stolen from a previous movie. They're not exactly going where no man has gone before, are they? :facepalm
SVTStingRay
Sr Member
Re: New STAR TREK 3
since Nemesis, im still waiting to see a real Star Trek movie.........not a star trek as star wars movie.
since Nemesis, im still waiting to see a real Star Trek movie.........not a star trek as star wars movie.
astroboy
Master Member
Re: New STAR TREK 3
I'm actually of the belief that star trek doesn't make for a good movie franchise. None of them have actually been nearly as good as the weekly adventures. And there's been no consistency for them as a film series.
I also believe James bond suffers from this. It would be WAY better as a TV series
I'm actually of the belief that star trek doesn't make for a good movie franchise. None of them have actually been nearly as good as the weekly adventures. And there's been no consistency for them as a film series.
I also believe James bond suffers from this. It would be WAY better as a TV series
Re: New STAR TREK 3
Problem is the way science-fiction is marketed lately. A proper Star Trek movie, properly done, would be a good taut drama -- with the sort of humorous moments real life tends to include -- with Our Heroes working to solve a problem that incidentally includes some sort of socio-economic-politial-spiritual-philosophical morality subtext, with the outer space setting incidental, but allowing us to tackle tough questions from a safe remove from the here and now.
Not a high-concept space opera, nor a turn-your-brain-off roller-coaster that falls to pieces if you start to actually think about it in the slightest -- such as, sadly, the last five Trek films made. I love elements of all of those, don't get me wrong. But they all have issues. Thing is, though, that today's audiences go into a space movie expecting fluff and lots of empty effects, not be asked to pay attention or -- heaven forfend -- think about things. But my most-watched episode of Next Generation is probably "The Measure of a Man", which is a complete bottle show, largely taking place in a single courtroom.
--Jonah
Problem is the way science-fiction is marketed lately. A proper Star Trek movie, properly done, would be a good taut drama -- with the sort of humorous moments real life tends to include -- with Our Heroes working to solve a problem that incidentally includes some sort of socio-economic-politial-spiritual-philosophical morality subtext, with the outer space setting incidental, but allowing us to tackle tough questions from a safe remove from the here and now.
Not a high-concept space opera, nor a turn-your-brain-off roller-coaster that falls to pieces if you start to actually think about it in the slightest -- such as, sadly, the last five Trek films made. I love elements of all of those, don't get me wrong. But they all have issues. Thing is, though, that today's audiences go into a space movie expecting fluff and lots of empty effects, not be asked to pay attention or -- heaven forfend -- think about things. But my most-watched episode of Next Generation is probably "The Measure of a Man", which is a complete bottle show, largely taking place in a single courtroom.
--Jonah
ghostryder
Legendary Member
Re: New STAR TREK 3
‘Star Trek 3′ Director Search Narrows To Five Including Rupert Wyatt
http://deadline.com/2014/12/star-tr...rt-wyatt-morten-tyldum-justin-lin-1201325612/
‘Star Trek 3′ Director Search Narrows To Five Including Rupert Wyatt
http://deadline.com/2014/12/star-tr...rt-wyatt-morten-tyldum-justin-lin-1201325612/
Riceball
Master Member
Re: New STAR TREK 3
I still think that they should have just went all the way and called it a reboot instead of this whole alternate time line thing. Would it have pissed off some fans, sure, but with all of the changes to the timeline they've made I'd argue that it would have eventually pissed off fewer fans if they went with it as a full reboot because then fans wouldn't be able to argue and complain about the discrepancies in the timeline.
I still think that they should have just went all the way and called it a reboot instead of this whole alternate time line thing. Would it have pissed off some fans, sure, but with all of the changes to the timeline they've made I'd argue that it would have eventually pissed off fewer fans if they went with it as a full reboot because then fans wouldn't be able to argue and complain about the discrepancies in the timeline.
Similar threads
