They would be idiots not to make it an epic War movie. Thats what the people buying tickets want. The key to making ST work it to make it more exciting for the new fans. The old fans will still watch. If you make a movie for the old fans your asking for trouble ticket wise.
It seems for Paramount, a successful Star Trek film for the company must have Khan, Earth, Time Travel or Humpback Whales, based on the past successful Trek films.
Earth and Time Travel was used in 2009, Khan and Earth were used in this new film, that means...
It's likely the film-makers are developing the Kirk-Marcus relationship in the next film, seeing as she's part of the crew now. Imagine Carol getting pregnant and Kirk accepting the responsibility of being a dad, possibly after this version of Kirk losing his dad during the Kelvin incident.
I just watched it in 3D for the first time enjoyed it like I did the 2D but I have a few questions:
What was the exterior of the warp core from I am sure they used an existing item like the did with the brewery insides for the last film.
What was the interior of the Vengeance (not counting the bridge) from?
I wish they would too. After 12 Trek films, time travel has been used a few times, revenge as well especially in 09 and Into Darkness. Lots of fans want a film discussing politics and ethics like on the TV shows, but look what happened with Insurrection, which was like a big budget TV episode.
I think there were rumors years back that there was going to do the Romulan war, but decided to reboot the films. So far they have just used The Wrath of Khan as a template and haven't really tried any original ideas, just going over what has already occurred in the original universe.
All they need to do is show a Klingon war, because we haven't seen a space war in a Star Trek film yet. But knowing Paramount, it will be the crew travelling back to 2016 (Star Trek's 50th anniversary) with lots of gags i.e The Voyage Home e.g Kirk and Scotty at a lapdancing club, Spock and Uhura on a date, Spock giving Justin Beibler the Vulcan neckpinch...
Klingons haven't gotten much love in this new franchise. They got cut from the first film, and in this movie they just exist to make the real villain look better (a premature Worf effect).
I just watched it in 3D for the first time enjoyed it like I did the 2D but I have a few questions:
What was the exterior of the warp core from I am sure they used an existing item like the did with the brewery insides for the last film.
What was the interior of the Vengeance (not counting the bridge) from?
So, I finally got to see STiD. This, next to IM3, has been my most anticipated film this summer, perhaps this year. I have mad, crazy, wicked insane love for ST2009, and it's one of my desert island movies, period.
Pros:
-The ensemble was in top notch form this go round. Even if the script was a little lacking for the characters in some parts, everyone acquitted themselves amazingly well, with Benedict Cumberbatch, Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine absolutely nailing their roles.
-The development of Spock and Kirk's friendship continues to be the crowning jewel in Abrams' reboot. The last thirty minutes, from a purely character standpoint, was a tour de force for ZQ as Spock realized what losing Kirk would mean to him. This was a total love letter to their friendship and broship and I admit to getting teary with each time Kirk basically declared his "feelings" for Spock and Spock seeking vengeance at the end.
-The action sequences were amazing, far better developed than even ST2009.
-The addition of
Carol Marcus
was pretty good. I wasn't terribly familiar with Alice Eve before this but she added some nice energy to the ensemble, gratuitous underwear shot wasn't necessary though.
-The villian was great, and there were some breathtaking cinematic moments choreographed in this film.
There were some cons for me though, despite the really good/great stuff that holds me back from giving this movie a perfect score:
-As much as I think Cumberbatch is a phenomenal actor, I really truly was frustrated that he ended up
being cast as Khan. The moment Cumberbatch said who he was, I just couldn't buy it. Everything else about Cumberbatch's performance sold me, but I really just did not like that he was this particular character.
As I've been spoiler-free up until today, I was hoping beyond hope that BC would be cast as someone we've not yet seen in a Star Trek movie, like Gary Mitchell. I just thought it needlessly regressive for a franchise whose creator took great pains to create a racially inclusive television show in the 60's. Abrams could've used the opportunity to be even more progressive with casting this movie. Of course, I know that Benicio Del Toro was cast in this role before BC replaced him. But... you can't tell me there aren't any South Asian actors who could've done a smashing job as well.
Yet, I loved watching Cumberbatch tear crap up. He was practically flawless, except for my con above.
Right now I'm watching WOK and comparing/contrasting Montalban's and Cumberbatch's performances is a fun way to spend a Sunday night.
-I love Easter eggs in franchises, but some of the eggs thrown in this movie didn't work for me as it did for others.
The tribble scene with McCoy was one, as was Spock's "KHAAAAAAAAAAN!" moment. I think, even from the first scene where Khan's introduced, to the tribble scene, both moments served to cheapen Kirk's death a little for me. I predicted they would use Khan's blood to revive Kirk and some of the brilliant emotional arc for Kirk's character in the movie was diminished for me when I realized the film was basically going to "reverse Khan" Spock's iconic death. The probleem is, for me, it didn't quite work because I never bought Kirk staying dead the way I pretty much thought Spock was a goner in WOK.
-Abrams' love for the quick shots, rapid-fire editing really did divest some of the emotional investment I could've had for some of the scenes. Honestly, the acting really gave the movie its heart for me.
-I still have some issues with how women are portrayed in this movie. There was no need for AE's underwear shot, nor was there any reason why
Uhura, a freakin' professional officer, would force a relationship conversation with Spock in front of their superior officer before heading into battle
. Save it for private quarters, girl. I facepalmed over Kirk's little sexcapade as well. Just... facepalmed so hard. Also, it failed Bechdel. Boo.
Still though, a few hours later, and the positives are sticking with me more than the negatives, especially with Kirk and Spock's friendship. That resonates with me in ways that even Shatner's and Nimoy's versions didn't.
So, overall, probably a 7.5/10. Maybe an 8/10 after the dust settles.
I hated the last few seasons of DS9. I was already a little iffy on it. That war would never have happened if Roddenberry had been alive. I settled for Voyager. I tried to be forgiving of DS9. The writers and producers were all people who had felt shackled by Roddenberry's rules and set out to break as many as possible. War being the biggest, IMHO.
Star Trek deals with war by discussion of the consequences and the lessons learned. Star Trek gets to the brink of war only to find a way out of it at the last moment. Enterprise usually takes a pounding in the process, so you still get your space battle.
"The strength of a civilization is not measured by its ability to fight wars, but rather by its ability to prevent them" Gene Roddenberry
I don't know if Roddenberry would hate it. He was a veteran of the Second World War who volunteered for service. Sometimes you have to fight for what is right and I think that was the point of those later seasons of DS9 and examining how a more advanced and enlightened people should try to stay true to their morals and principles during such a conflict. Although it was put to an end by the Organians before it really began, Errand of Mercy did posit a full-out shooting war between the Federation and the Klingons.
Don't get me wrong, I can understand the argument that the DS9 writers were constantly breaking the rules that Roddenberry established for TNG. However, I'm not too bothered by it because I think the core aspects of his vision were still intact as the Federation was portrayed as a civilization that made great strides of advancement, but it offered a more nuanced view. Lots of things were better but other things remained the same as they always had been and I think that is reflective of the different views on civil rights and advancement seen during the 1960s when Roddenberry first created Star Trek and the realities of the 1990s. The Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s had accomplished much, but the fight wasn't over despite many being lulled into complacency and if Trek was going to continue to serve as the powerful social science fiction allegory that Roddenberry intended, it needed to reflect those ideas.
And to be fair, that is probably more in line with Roddenberry's original vision. In Errand of Mercy, the Federation dove into the war with the Klingons pretty zealously. The Organians halted the war as much to teach the Federation a lesson as the Klingons. They were portrayed as far from perfect.
In the end, I agree with your main point that making Star Trek 3 feature a Federation-Klingon War would be a big mistake. Whether one feels that the final seasons of DS9 are in accordance with Roddenberry's vision for Star Trek, they at least function as good science fiction, written intelligently, that examine many of the themes and ideas that Trek was known for. The writing team currently employed have proven that they are incapable of writing such a story with the nuance and intelligence that would make a good Star Trek story in terms of science fiction allegory and it would be incredibly repetitive after the last two military/combat heavy stories. The series badly needs a change of pace. If you gave it the stylish veneer and attitude of FUN adventure present in Star Trek 09 and STID's prologue, a classic Trek tale of adventure and discovery could be quite successful in my opinion. I think the use of Insurrection as an example why such an approach is doomed to fail is inaccurate. The success of films like District 9, Inception and Looper have all proven that audiences will accept intelligent, original science fiction fair at the box office. You just need to know how to sell it.
I cannot begin to tell you how un-Star Trek that would be and how off putting it would be to Trek fans. It will be the final nail in the coffin for this reboot.
The 50th anniversary of Trek is coming up. If they take that opportunity and crank out some Star Trek themed war movie, fans are likely to lead an armed revolt.
how is it un-star trek to have a war. Roddenberry foresaw everyone on earth getting along, and believed that humans strived to better themselves. He viewed the federation as peaceful explorers who would try everything possible to prevent a war. Roddenberry also showed other alien species and organizations trying to do the same thing, but that doesn't mean that the federation would never have a war with another species. The simplest example of the federation encountering a species where diplomatic negotiations or a one off skirmish wouldn't prevent a war are the borg.
There's a difference between not liking wars, and refusing to ever depict one in a story you're writing. You could for example focus on the people trying to end one.
War is a reality, you can't just ignore it, or write it off because you don't like it. That's just silly. Especially in this universe full of warships and warlike civilizations.
If that's really the case, no wonder the writers got annoyed with Roddenberry.
We need a movie where old Kirk comes to this Universe. To bring back old Spock & then he recruits the young Enterprise crew. To help them out with a problem in the original Universe. Which can also involve Klingons in both timelines etc. This new franchise is asking for a crossover. Or they can also bring in Picard instead of old Kirk
There's a difference between not liking wars, and refusing to ever depict one in a story you're writing. You could for example focus on the people trying to end one.
War is a reality, you can't just ignore it, or write it off because you don't like it. That's just silly. Especially in this universe full of warships and warlike civilizations.
If that's really the case, no wonder the writers got annoyed with Roddenberry.
a lot of the rules Roddenberry had in place did rube the writers the wrong way especially in TNG. If I remember correctly none of the crew could have disagreements....which is sad because I love the Spock/Bones disagreements. I happened along Ronald Moore's series bible for Battlestar Galactica and it reads like anti-star trek.....Moore was a writer on TNG and Ds9 and is responsible for all the klingon stuff in the show... http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.harvar...smgr/hwp-pdfs/battlestar_galactica_series.pdf
We need a movie where old Kirk comes to this Universe. To bring back old Spock & then he recruits the young Enterprise crew. To help them out with a problem in the original Universe. Which can also involve Klingons in both timelines etc. This new franchise is asking for a crossover. Or they can also bring in Picard instead of old Kirk
We need a movie where old Kirk comes to this Universe. To bring back old Spock & then he recruits the young Enterprise crew. To help them out with a problem in the original Universe. Which can also involve Klingons in both timelines etc. This new franchise is asking for a crossover. Or they can also bring in Picard instead of old Kirk
Now that would be a good idea. I wonder where the Nexus is in the alternate reality universe? Time has no meaning in the nexus so even though Kirk allegedly died, there still might be a echo of him elsewhere. I mean, Picard entered the nexus and then reversed time in the nexus with Kirk. Is Picard and crew actually still in the nexus?
I think a crossover is likely for the 50th, for example while on the five-year mission the Enterprise gets sucked through a wormhole and either ends up bumping into the TNG crew/Picard or Nimoy and Shatner. Then again I know nothing about Trek lore so that might be impossible.
Then have the fourth movie either be Khan's vengeance, the Enterprise's return to their present to find Earth in the middle of a war with the Klingons, or both one after the other.
Im sure people have mentioned this so far somewhere...OR maybe not.
Its in the trailers too and the film obviously...When the Enterprises crashes and literally destroys all those building in daylight with people in them, probably thousands and thousands DIE. Yet, it is never discussed afterwards, the loss of life that resulted from that.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
