Star Trek Beyond
- Thread starter Bryancd
- Start date
firesprite
Master Member
Re: New STAR TREK 3
As I told a friend of mine, I feel that if they were smart, they'd give the crew making Star Trek Axanar a plum distribution deal and go that direction. Even with a shoestring budget, the prelude looked incredible.
As I told a friend of mine, I feel that if they were smart, they'd give the crew making Star Trek Axanar a plum distribution deal and go that direction. Even with a shoestring budget, the prelude looked incredible.
Aberration
Active Member
Re: New STAR TREK 3
So happy to hear this... always thought it was douchey of him to get a major franchise film when he hasn't directed a thing in his whole life. The possibility of Wright and Pegg teaming up on a Trek film is too awesome to comprehend though!
So happy to hear this... always thought it was douchey of him to get a major franchise film when he hasn't directed a thing in his whole life. The possibility of Wright and Pegg teaming up on a Trek film is too awesome to comprehend though!
Re: New STAR TREK 3
This news couldn't be more sweet. It's not about "He doesn't get Star Trek", it's not about "His writing sucks", it's not even about him telling me to stop smoking crack after making a comment that wasn't even aimed towards him. it's about handing one of the most important science fiction franchises over to a guy who openly shows contempt towards not just the fans, but anyone who thinks that his Star Trek movies could be better. What he said in the comment section on trekmovie.com's article "Star Trek is broken" was one of the most disrespectful things an industry professional has said to a fan. What he said later to the fan base that didn't like Star Trek Into Darkness was almost worse. I just cannot support him.
This news couldn't be more sweet. It's not about "He doesn't get Star Trek", it's not about "His writing sucks", it's not even about him telling me to stop smoking crack after making a comment that wasn't even aimed towards him. it's about handing one of the most important science fiction franchises over to a guy who openly shows contempt towards not just the fans, but anyone who thinks that his Star Trek movies could be better. What he said in the comment section on trekmovie.com's article "Star Trek is broken" was one of the most disrespectful things an industry professional has said to a fan. What he said later to the fan base that didn't like Star Trek Into Darkness was almost worse. I just cannot support him.
Re: New STAR TREK 3
...and looks like the suits did'nt either and came to their senses :thumbsup
...and looks like the suits did'nt either and came to their senses :thumbsup
ghostryder
Legendary Member
Re: New STAR TREK 3
If this script description is true:
http://trekcore.com/blog/2014/12/rumor-alert-roberto-orci-out-as-trek-3-director/
I *really* can't believe the best story they can come up with is to...
If this script description is true:
http://trekcore.com/blog/2014/12/rumor-alert-roberto-orci-out-as-trek-3-director/
I *really* can't believe the best story they can come up with is to...
...go to the time travel well again 
AGAIN? Trek needs to be about the future, not spending ALL THREE of it's new movies naval gazing at its own past.
AGAIN? Trek needs to be about the future, not spending ALL THREE of it's new movies naval gazing at its own past.
Re: New STAR TREK 3
It is Treks "Curse"
Time Travel has been whipped to death in the Franchise
It is Treks "Curse"
Time Travel has been whipped to death in the Franchise
If this script description is true:
http://trekcore.com/blog/2014/12/rumor-alert-roberto-orci-out-as-trek-3-director/
I *really* can't believe the best story they can come up with is to...
...go to the time travel well again
Re: New STAR TREK 3
The story wouldn't work anyways since
The story wouldn't work anyways since
going back in time doesn't fix their timeline. They'd just be going to *GASP* an alternate reality. So even if they save the Vulcan in that reality, the Vulcan from their own reality would still be destroyed, just as everyone is trying to say that Vulcan is still around in the prime universe.
kegas76
Well-Known Member
Last edited by a moderator:
RayR
Well-Known Member
Re: New STAR TREK 3
If ONNLY!!!
- - - Updated - - -
Nudge, nudge. Say No More!
If ONNLY!!!
- - - Updated - - -
Nudge, nudge. Say No More!
RayR
Well-Known Member
Re: New STAR TREK 3
Am I the only one that has noticed the ST movies have turned into Action-Adventure flicks like Mission Impossible or Terminator. Why not just let Michael Bay have it (god no!)?
That is supposed to just be an element of the total picture, not the core of it. ST is supposed to be about man's relationship to man, his place in the universe...the classic Morality Plays of our century. The story has to have depth and meaning, not just explosions and lens flares.
That said, there could conceivably be a story that puts these characters back into the original universe. After all, this is supposed to be an "alternate" timeline". And I strongly agree that Time Travel is NOT the way. Done to death. I believed it is what immediately made ST Enterprise Jump The Shark right from the pilot.
But the 60's uniforms and short skirts have to stay =)
Am I the only one that has noticed the ST movies have turned into Action-Adventure flicks like Mission Impossible or Terminator. Why not just let Michael Bay have it (god no!)?
That is supposed to just be an element of the total picture, not the core of it. ST is supposed to be about man's relationship to man, his place in the universe...the classic Morality Plays of our century. The story has to have depth and meaning, not just explosions and lens flares.
That said, there could conceivably be a story that puts these characters back into the original universe. After all, this is supposed to be an "alternate" timeline". And I strongly agree that Time Travel is NOT the way. Done to death. I believed it is what immediately made ST Enterprise Jump The Shark right from the pilot.
But the 60's uniforms and short skirts have to stay =)
tgreco
Sr Member
Re: New STAR TREK 3
Absolutely 1000% agree. They've traded in the smarts of Trek for ship battles and shoot outs.
And they all keep trying to rehash Khan or make the next Khan, because they want a central villain. And every one of them has failed. From Dr. Soren, to the Borg Queen to Shinzon to Ru'afo to Nero to Rehashed Khan. They are all weak sauce.
I always thought if the JJ wanted to do Khan, they should have redone Space Seed. For several reasons... An old Earth ship found in Klingon space, they go to rescue, sparking tensions with the Klingons, fighting off Khan attempting to take control of the Enterprise... I would have loved to see that. And it also would have given them the opportunity to bring Khan back 2 or 3 films from now. It would have established the character, and why he is hell bent on revenge with Kirk.
But without that history, Khan is just a run of the mill bad guy. But he's a brand name bad guy, and that's why JJ and Orci wanted him... because it was easy. Because they could piggy back off of the gravitas of the character without having to write anything original.
I don't regret walking out of the theater.
STVI (the last great ST film IMO) is smart, funny, political, AND action, and it tackled prejudice and conspiracy. All of that, and they didn't have a bad guy. They had General Chang, Lt. Valleris, and Admiral Cartwright conspiring to keep tensions between the Federation and Klingon Empire.
The morality play aspect of Trek has been lost, and replaced with Bayhem.
Absolutely 1000% agree. They've traded in the smarts of Trek for ship battles and shoot outs.
And they all keep trying to rehash Khan or make the next Khan, because they want a central villain. And every one of them has failed. From Dr. Soren, to the Borg Queen to Shinzon to Ru'afo to Nero to Rehashed Khan. They are all weak sauce.
I always thought if the JJ wanted to do Khan, they should have redone Space Seed. For several reasons... An old Earth ship found in Klingon space, they go to rescue, sparking tensions with the Klingons, fighting off Khan attempting to take control of the Enterprise... I would have loved to see that. And it also would have given them the opportunity to bring Khan back 2 or 3 films from now. It would have established the character, and why he is hell bent on revenge with Kirk.
But without that history, Khan is just a run of the mill bad guy. But he's a brand name bad guy, and that's why JJ and Orci wanted him... because it was easy. Because they could piggy back off of the gravitas of the character without having to write anything original.
I don't regret walking out of the theater.
STVI (the last great ST film IMO) is smart, funny, political, AND action, and it tackled prejudice and conspiracy. All of that, and they didn't have a bad guy. They had General Chang, Lt. Valleris, and Admiral Cartwright conspiring to keep tensions between the Federation and Klingon Empire.
The morality play aspect of Trek has been lost, and replaced with Bayhem.
ghostryder
Legendary Member
Re: New STAR TREK 3
tgreco
Sr Member
Re: New STAR TREK 3
There was? What? Don't hurt Khan's feelings? Don't hire former genetically engineered super humans to head up your star ship R&D department? Or are we talking the Admiral's blathering about how humanity must defend itself at all costs and then somehow building a giant warship that nobody knows about, while having a model of it on his desk, and a crew of hundreds or thousands that had to build it, but it's a big secret...shhhh
They threw everything at the wall and hoped something would stick.
STID was ridiculous on every level.
There was? What? Don't hurt Khan's feelings? Don't hire former genetically engineered super humans to head up your star ship R&D department? Or are we talking the Admiral's blathering about how humanity must defend itself at all costs and then somehow building a giant warship that nobody knows about, while having a model of it on his desk, and a crew of hundreds or thousands that had to build it, but it's a big secret...shhhh
They threw everything at the wall and hoped something would stick.
STID was ridiculous on every level.
jlee562
Sr Member
Re: New STAR TREK 3
Use of force in response to "terrorism" vs police action (apprehension and trial).
You don't see how this could possibly relate to current political events? As in, the debate in this country about the use of armed drones.
I'm not arguing that the film's treatment of this message was well executed, but it's clearly there. Kirk and Spock debate it!
Use of force in response to "terrorism" vs police action (apprehension and trial).
You don't see how this could possibly relate to current political events? As in, the debate in this country about the use of armed drones.
I'm not arguing that the film's treatment of this message was well executed, but it's clearly there. Kirk and Spock debate it!
Re: New STAR TREK 3
Unfortunately it takes a little bit more than just having a social message to have a good story, never mind a good Star Trek story. I'm on the boat that thinks social messages aren't that interesting. For one thing, it feels like a cheat. You're not putting effort into shaping your own story, you're copying and pasting current events that everyone knows about. What makes STID's social message icky is how much of it stems from Roberto Orci's not so subtle 'truther' beliefs. He certainly has something to say, but he's only interesting it saying it from his single-minded perspective.
Case in point: Admiral Marcus. This guy is post-9/11 pro-war america personified. Only problem is instead of trying to understand why he wants to take these drastic measures, he's simply doing it because he's a two-dimensional bad guy and nothing more. There is almost zero attempt to make his actions justifiable or even understandable. The only thing we're given in terms of motivation for his actions is because the Klingons attacked Starfleet in the past. Who the heck are the Klingons in this universe? For new comers to Star Trek who began with Trek09, the only thing they know about Klingons is that they lost 47 ships in the last movie. That's it.
What kills me about this is that the writers had all the means to make Admiral Marcus a more three-dimensional character and they wouldn't have had to change that much. Why not have his motivations for war stem from the events of the last movie?
Instead of wanting war with the Klingons, have it instead be war with the Romulans. When he talks about his eagerness to deal with them, you can have it be because he lost a lot of close friends when Nero destroyed the seven Federation ships and Vulcan. Having Kirk and/or Spock argue that the Romulan Star Empire had nothing to do with the destruction of Vulcan can still tie in with that social message of present day events, like how Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Marcus' motivations can also stem from the need to prevent such a tragedy from happening again since he knows Nero came from the future. Waging war with Romulas now can be seen as a means of ensuring that Nero would never exist. To make it even more clever, you can have Kirk tell Marcus why Nero did what he felt he had to do. Starfleet and the Federation abandoned Romulas to their fate. What could prevent Nero's potential galaxy destroying wrath isn't waging war to ensure he doesn't exist, but to not stand idly by and watch a culture be destroyed when you had the power to do something about it.
But why have that when we can just link the last movie strictly to Spock/Uhura relationship issues, a pointless Klingon shoot'em up, head squishing action and a Star Trek defining climax of two guys punching each other in San Fransisco! It's almost like the last Trek09 never happened.
We've lost nothing with his departure.
Unfortunately it takes a little bit more than just having a social message to have a good story, never mind a good Star Trek story. I'm on the boat that thinks social messages aren't that interesting. For one thing, it feels like a cheat. You're not putting effort into shaping your own story, you're copying and pasting current events that everyone knows about. What makes STID's social message icky is how much of it stems from Roberto Orci's not so subtle 'truther' beliefs. He certainly has something to say, but he's only interesting it saying it from his single-minded perspective.
Case in point: Admiral Marcus. This guy is post-9/11 pro-war america personified. Only problem is instead of trying to understand why he wants to take these drastic measures, he's simply doing it because he's a two-dimensional bad guy and nothing more. There is almost zero attempt to make his actions justifiable or even understandable. The only thing we're given in terms of motivation for his actions is because the Klingons attacked Starfleet in the past. Who the heck are the Klingons in this universe? For new comers to Star Trek who began with Trek09, the only thing they know about Klingons is that they lost 47 ships in the last movie. That's it.
What kills me about this is that the writers had all the means to make Admiral Marcus a more three-dimensional character and they wouldn't have had to change that much. Why not have his motivations for war stem from the events of the last movie?
Instead of wanting war with the Klingons, have it instead be war with the Romulans. When he talks about his eagerness to deal with them, you can have it be because he lost a lot of close friends when Nero destroyed the seven Federation ships and Vulcan. Having Kirk and/or Spock argue that the Romulan Star Empire had nothing to do with the destruction of Vulcan can still tie in with that social message of present day events, like how Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Marcus' motivations can also stem from the need to prevent such a tragedy from happening again since he knows Nero came from the future. Waging war with Romulas now can be seen as a means of ensuring that Nero would never exist. To make it even more clever, you can have Kirk tell Marcus why Nero did what he felt he had to do. Starfleet and the Federation abandoned Romulas to their fate. What could prevent Nero's potential galaxy destroying wrath isn't waging war to ensure he doesn't exist, but to not stand idly by and watch a culture be destroyed when you had the power to do something about it.
But why have that when we can just link the last movie strictly to Spock/Uhura relationship issues, a pointless Klingon shoot'em up, head squishing action and a Star Trek defining climax of two guys punching each other in San Fransisco! It's almost like the last Trek09 never happened.
We've lost nothing with his departure.
Similar threads
