|
Harime Nui posted:You know what'd be a good Star Trek III, set it 80 years after Into Darkness and be like yeah, the Federation and Klingon Empire totally went to war and poo poo's completely hosed---the galaxy is like a demilitarized zone, Federation society's turned militaristic and is run by Section 31 douchebags, large swathes of the galaxy have been wiped out etc. etc. and open it with a familiar character from the TNG era---probably Data would be best----and have him go back in time not to undo Into Darkness but to stop the Khitomer Accords from being sabotaged or something, there you'd have a movie. You could even cold open it with Kirk & crew getting wiped out in some battle in the opening scene and cut to 80 YEARS LATER w/e, as a sop to the people who really really want to see the new cast die for some reason.
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
You shut up my fanfic idea is good and not lame e: v v v people would like it!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:You know what'd be a good Star Trek III, set it 80 years after Into Darkness and be like yeah, the Federation and Klingon Empire totally went to war and poo poo's completely hosed---the galaxy is like a demilitarized zone, Federation society's turned militaristic and is run by Section 31 douchebags, large swathes of the galaxy have been wiped out etc. etc. and open it with a familiar character from the TNG era---probably Data would be best----and have him go back in time not to undo Into Darkness but to stop the Khitomer Accords from being sabotaged or something, there you'd have a movie. You could even cold open it with Kirk & crew getting wiped out in some battle in the opening scene and cut to 80 YEARS LATER w/e, as a sop to the people who really really want to see the new cast die for some reason. Yeah, I saw Days of Future Past too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
So they send Data to the past right, but check it out, someone else has beat him there... that's right Lore is back and this time he's made out of a swarm of like, itty bitty evil looking robots so when you punch him it's like ssssssandddd
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Cry Havoc posted:wake me up when the villain is mudd He'd already been dealt with by the Enterprise by the time of Into Darkness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
wyoming posted:Naval battles in space is a huge part of Star Trek though. So yeah, it would be nice for it actually fire some space cannons and sink some space Spaniards. It was a huge part of one film: The Wrath of Khan, and every attempt to copy it has been a stinking pile of poo poo Seriously though, the trailer genuinely carried the aesthetic of TOS far more than either than either of the other reboot films, getting salty that it wasn't a series of pew pew space battles like real Star Trek is downright bizarre Harime Nui posted:You know what'd be a good Star Trek III, set it 80 years after Into Darkness and be like yeah, the Federation and Klingon Empire totally went to war and poo poo's completely hosed---the galaxy is like a demilitarized zone, Federation society's turned militaristic and is run by Section 31 douchebags, large swathes of the galaxy have been wiped out etc. etc. and open it with a familiar character from the TNG era---probably Data would be best----and have him go back in time not to undo Into Darkness but to stop the Khitomer Accords from being sabotaged or something, there you'd have a movie. You could even cold open it with Kirk & crew getting wiped out in some battle in the opening scene and cut to 80 YEARS LATER w/e, as a sop to the people who really really want to see the new cast die for some reason. Yeah, I saw Yesterday's Enterprise too
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Ahahaha, I cannot BELIEVE Paramount's answer to Star Wars with Star Trek is to try to be the hipper, more Xtreme alternative! Trying-too-hard marketing aside, the movie still looks like it has potential, though. Even the long list or writers probably isn't as bad as it seems at first glance: it's really just two teams of writers, and the second team is likely only listed because of some writers' guild rule. Threadwise, do we have any complaints about Star Trek Generations that aren't "Kirk died a lame death" and various sci-fi/time travel nitpicking? It isn't a great film by any means, but I thought they came up with a solution as elegant as could reasonably be expected for the across-timelines crossover and I found some of the set pieces genuinely thrilling, partly owing to the score having some of the best action motifs in the series.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
I'm intrigued by the idea of having a Trek movie set mostly on a planet and not a starship, but it does give me horrible flashbacks of Insurrection. Also I don't think Star Trek is "answering" back to Star Wars in any sense. That's kind of an old model, back when they were the only games in town. Right now Hollywood producers have no loving idea why any one particular film or series is successful so they're just throwing poo poo at the wall and hoping it all looks good when you make a trailer out of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
A Steampunk Gent posted:Seriously though, the trailer genuinely carried the aesthetic of TOS far more than either than either of the other reboot films, getting salty that it wasn't a series of pew pew space battles like real Star Trek is downright bizarre I watched TOS too and I dunno what you're talking about. One of the all-time top rated classic Trek episodes is basically a take on a submarine movie where the whole episode is a long duel between Kirk and a Romulan warbird, so yeah space navy battles is kinda there in the bedrock of the show too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:I watched TOS too and I dunno what you're talking about. Yeah, if your threshold for "Looking like Star Trek" is "generic alien planet" then I don't know. It could just be a godawful trailer, I have my doubts, but that is a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
FrensaGeran posted:Also I don't think Star Trek is "answering" back to Star Wars in any sense. That's kind of an old model, back when they were the only games in town. If they're not, they probably should. I honest-to-God have had a long-held hunch that much of Star Trek's (the movie series, at least) mainstream success in the 80s and 90s was that they were kind of "the Star Wars movie for when there wasn't a Star Wars movie". I really don't think people outside of geek circles have room on their palette for two simultaneous space opera franchises. I don't think it's a coincidence that the pre-Abrams Trek movies petered out, ohhhhh, pretty much exactly the last time Star Wars came back. I know people will be all "they've co-existed before!" But that was when high-quality outer space special FX was still a novelty; and also in the past Star Wars was always a finite thing: you knew you were getting three movies and then the whole thing was going into mothballs for who-knows-how-long. Now, though, Disney is in charge of things and we're getting Star Wars Cinematic Universe movies every year 'til the end of time, so... Anyhow, I could be wrong. Like I said, it's just a hunch. But I think it's a good idea that they're starting up a new TV series in case they get pushed out of the movies space. (Until Disney makes a Star Wars TV show, of course....)
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:I watched TOS too and I dunno what you're talking about. One of the all-time top rated classic Trek episodes is basically a take on a submarine movie where the whole episode is a long duel between Kirk and a Romulan warbird, so yeah space navy battles is kinda there in the bedrock of the show too. There's a few episodes with that tone, and they are good, but for every one of those there's one where Spock gets high on spores or they go to the [history] planet and learn about fascism or something. Anyway, my point is it's a really narrow and arbitary definition of Star Trek and definitely doesn't represent the vast majority of the good films
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
The new Star Wars and the new Star Trek are p. much made by the same people, are they gonna have an argument with themselves?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:You know what'd be a good Star Trek III, set it 80 years after Into Darkness and be like yeah, the Federation and Klingon Empire totally went to war and poo poo's completely hosed---the galaxy is like a demilitarized zone, Federation society's turned militaristic and is run by Section 31 douchebags, large swathes of the galaxy have been wiped out etc. etc. and open it with a familiar character from the TNG era---probably Data would be best----and have him go back in time not to undo Into Darkness but to stop the Khitomer Accords from being sabotaged or something, there you'd have a movie. You could even cold open it with Kirk & crew getting wiped out in some battle in the opening scene and cut to 80 YEARS LATER w/e, as a sop to the people who really really want to see the new cast die for some reason. That sounds horrible are you trying to sabotage the franchise? They saved the loving entire future by traveling to the past in the first film and creating a new timeline only to loving ruin in a movie later? God drat STITD Sucked rear end hard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:I watched TOS too and I dunno what you're talking about. One of the all-time top rated classic Trek episodes is basically a take on a submarine movie where the whole episode is a long duel between Kirk and a Romulan warbird, so yeah space navy battles is kinda there in the bedrock of the show too. And one of the most memorable ones is Kirk running around and beating a dinosaur with a dick rock.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
If anything Into Darkness was the most Star Trek film. Because the majority of the episodes involved them finding a Space God and defeating them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And one of the most memorable ones is Kirk running around and beating a dinosaur with a dick rock. Look, the guy basically didn't use the word aesthetics right, so deal! e: exclamation! Harime Nui fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:Look, the guy basically didn't use the word aesthetics right, so deal. He also lives in the delusion that Voyage Home is the most popular film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
lizardman posted:If they're not, they probably should. I honest-to-God have had a long-held hunch that much of Star Trek's (the movie series, at least) mainstream success in the 80s and 90s was that they were kind of "the Star Wars movie for when there wasn't a Star Wars movie". I really don't think people outside of geek circles have room on their palette for two simultaneous space opera franchises. I don't think it's a coincidence that the pre-Abrams Trek movies petered out, ohhhhh, pretty much exactly the last time Star Wars came back. The problem with this theory is that it ignores why pre-JJTrek "petered out". Except for a few seasons of DS9, everything made after TNG ended was characterized by poor writing and a general lack of creativity. The movies are generic and forgettable in the worst way possible when compared with the best episodes of the show. Voyager and Enterprise were reimaginings of TNG with the thoughtfulness and good characters stripped out. The quality wasn't there and so people just stopped watching. In other words, the franchise committed suicide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And one of the most memorable ones is Kirk running around and beating a dinosaur with a dick rock. The dick rock was a robot. The dinosaur was a bamboo cannon that shot diamonds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:The problem with this theory is that it ignores why pre-JJTrek "petered out". Except for a few seasons of DS9, everything made after TNG ended was characterized by poor writing and a general lack of creativity. The movies are generic and forgettable in the worst way possible when compared with the best episodes of the show. Voyager and Enterprise were reimaginings of TNG with the thoughtfulness and good characters stripped out. The quality wasn't there and so people just stopped watching. In other words, the franchise committed suicide. It was seriously to the point where the executive producer on Enterprise was (or this is how he tells it anyway) "begging" Paramount to give Star Trek a rest for a while. They basically milked that cow so hard it's no surprise they would decide to rest it for at least a decade. Not coincidentally, 10 years after Enterprise died the death CBS is talking about a new show.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:The problem with this theory is that it ignores why pre-JJTrek "petered out". Except for a few seasons of DS9, everything made after TNG ended was characterized by poor writing and a general lack of creativity. The movies are generic and forgettable in the worst way possible when compared with the best episodes of the show. Voyager and Enterprise were reimaginings of TNG with the thoughtfulness and good characters stripped out. The quality wasn't there and so people just stopped watching. In other words, the franchise committed suicide. In terms of creativity I hope you aren't talking about the latter DS9 seasons, because those are the ones they cribbed from Babylon 5.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
IIRC DS9's writers deliberately chose not to watch B5 at the time so as to avoid that
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
lizardman posted:If they're not, they probably should. I honest-to-God have had a long-held hunch that much of Star Trek's (the movie series, at least) mainstream success in the 80s and 90s There were literally two Star Trek movies that had anything resembling mainstream success: The Voyage Home and First Contact. There's a reason that prior to the reboot, the budgets hovered in the $20 - $50 million range: Because they were always niche material. That Trek fans pretend otherwise is just rose-tinted glasses. Harime Nui posted:Not coincidentally, 10 years after Enterprise died the death CBS is talking about a new show. Only the pilot episode is going to actually be broadcast on television. The rest will be exclusive to CBS' for-pay online streaming service. Star Trek is not returning to TV in the "on a network / cable channel" sense, and I expect this new series to be a cheap cash-in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
I like a good Star Trek, but I won't subscribe to some dumb channel just to watch a Star Trek. I imagine this new show won't last long if you have to subscribe to it. For reference, I own at least one season of every Star Trek. RIP Star Trek The TV Show
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
The pasted together dialogue about the beastie boys in that trailer is maybe the worst example of shoehorning different scenes into an incoherent mess I have ever witnessed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Looks fine to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
I  ed at Simon Pegg like, popping up and out of that pod into a Wile E. Coyote situation and then gripping that cliff with one feeble arm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
It's incredibly unfair that Simon Pegg has been essentially pushed into the stratosphere of big franchise nerd movies and Nick Frost like gets to see him at receptions sometimes, what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:I It's not a J.J Abrams Star Trek movie if someone isn't dangling from a ledge by one or both hands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
I hate JJ Abrams. There, I said it. Every time that Bad Robot logo pops up it's like an excuse for why the production is the way it is. From ST to Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, it's all the same crap. Might as well just close your eyes and rub your fingers on the eyelids, you get the same visual fireworks and deep characterization as from a JJ Abrams production.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 12:34
|
|
|
It looks like they're fighting in the wreckage of the Enterprise later on in the trailer. Between that and the fact that when Kirk's ejecting you can see it falling towards a pretty close landscape, I'd say the E's gonna end up splattered on the surface. McCoy is still the best part of JJTrek. Timby posted:There were literally two Star Trek movies that had anything resembling mainstream success: The Voyage Home and First Contact. There's a reason that prior to the reboot, the budgets hovered in the $20 - $50 million range: Because they were always niche material. That Trek fans pretend otherwise is just rose-tinted glasses. On an adjusted-ticket-price-inflation metric, Trek '09 is top, but that's followed by TMP in second, Voyage Home, Into Darkness, Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, and then First Contact. The TNG movies just weren't a cultural thing the way the TOS movies were. But you can pretty safely say that the first four TOS movies were all mainstream success. Yes, even TMP. MikeJF fucked around with this message at 13:05 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 12:56
|
|
|
Binary Logic posted:I hate JJ Abrams. There, I said it. I hate him too but even a dumb script could stop Brad bird
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
Well, at least the JJ Abrams haters are attributing him to a series he actually previously directed, unlike the "Michael Bay" TMNT which is as much Michael Bay as Spielberg is for Transformers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:It's incredibly unfair that Simon Pegg has been essentially pushed into the stratosphere of big franchise nerd movies and Nick Frost like gets to see him at receptions sometimes, what the gently caress I dunno, Nick Frost was in Attack the Block. And uh
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Red posted:I dunno, Nick Frost was in Attack the Block. And uh Doctor Who! As Santa!
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
lizardman posted:Ahahaha, I cannot BELIEVE Paramount's answer to Star Wars with Star Trek is to try to be the hipper, more Xtreme alternative! This is of course the trailer that will be attached to Star Wars, that's why JJ's name is so prominently displayed as producer. They're not going to put in the scene where Kirk and Spock drink tea and discuss trade negotiations with the black and white faced aliens in this one because it would affirm all the things Star Wars fan deride the series for ("boring", "cerebral" stuff) quote:I watched TOS too and I dunno what you're talking about. One of the all-time top rated classic Trek episodes is basically a take on a submarine movie where the whole episode is a long duel between Kirk and a Romulan warbird, so yeah space navy battles is kinda there in the bedrock of the show too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Yeah, if you look and listen to the plot beats the trailer puts forth, it's got a pretty strong TOS vibe. You've got the basic hook that the crew is stranded, but you've also got the spooky mystery that there's a higher force toying with everyone (who surprise-transported Spock?) and drawing other crews to the same planet, which is all classic Trek. It's even got a scene that looks like it was filmed in a quarry! People mainly seem to have decided the trailer was "generic" or "not Trek" entirely because of the music (as opposed to the totally non-generic trailer for Into Darkness, in which a British villain monologued over cities exploding).
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
I would love it if it turned out to be one of those ham-handed "we put you all together on the same planet to see if you could learn to work together" things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
I don't get the tone. On one hand, damage to the Enterprise/similar ships has so far been portrayed as absolutely horrifying in the series - people being sucked into the vacuum in the first scene of the reboot etc. So this should be a serious movie, with the Enterprise going town like that and probably hundreds of good people dying. On the other hand, BEASTIE BOYS and a script by Pegg..?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:22
|
|