It would seem that for the 50th Anniversary film that somehow Shatner will be used. Nimoy got two movies under his belt with the new crew. Also, it will be the final film for these new actors since their contracts all expire. Remember they were to do only 3 films.
The purpose of the 2009 film was to move forward...and bringing Shatner in would be stepping back considerably. Sure, the case that since it is the 50th they could do that, but, I don't want Shatner robbing the leads of the rebooted franchise of screentime. Knowing his lawyers and him, he'll reduce Pine to second-gun and make it all about him. The farther he is from the franchise, the better.
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.
All of Vulcan was destroyed. Galactic politics was forever changed. The Federation lost one of its most powerful member states. That barely came up, beyond Spock having lost his mom.
So, a few thousand humans dying in San Francisco, seems like small potatoes.
I finally saw the movie over the weekend, and I really liked it. I thought it was really good, and I'm looking forward to where they take the next ST movie.
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.
That wasn't the Enterprise that crashed. It was the U.S.S. Vengeance and yes, in the christening of the refit new modified Enterprise at the end of the movie, which takes place a year later, Kirk stands in front of a huge audience and pays respects to ALL the people who died (and not just the people on his ship).
Saw it again yesterday with the fam (2nd viewing for me and my sister, 1st viewing for my parents). Still just as good the 2nd time if not better, as always with seeing movies a 2nd time, now that you know the story and what's happening, you can kind of let yourself pay attention to the smaller details. For example, I let myself focus a little more on Harrison's/[BLACKOUT]Khan's[/BLACKOUT] fighting style - not just with the Klingons but when he, Kirk and Scotty are on the Vengeance and have to take out some thugs in that corridor. The guy is brutal in his style, major kudos to Cumberbatch and/or his stunt double (if one was used at all in any of those scenes).
I still really love the moment where he's [BLACKOUT]crushing Admiral Marcus' skull with his bare hands and the emotion in his voice when - during such a brutal act - he says such a simple phrase of "You should have let me sleep!"[/BLACKOUT]
I think I've said it before, I'll say it again, I can't wait to hear what he does with Smaug and The Necromancer in the remaining 2 Hobbit films t:
After reading the leaked Interstellar script, I think Jonathan Nolan would be an amazing choice to write ST3... Unless Orci and Kurtzman come back of course
Roddenberry had a lot of good ideas...and a lot dumb or bat**** crazy ones. One of the best examples is his revisions to Harlan Ellison's script for "The City on the Edge of Forever": one glaring example being the rewrite of Keeler's vision for the future.
Don't know if this ever got posted (sorry if it has) but someone on another board linked to it and (even though it's redacted) the information is interesting and gives a bit of insight into events prior to the film beginning
My basic point is, these stories and characters sometimes grow beyond the scope and vision of the original creators.
Look at George Lucas and Star Wars. Some of the worst things that ever happened to Star Wars was because of George Lucas.
Roddenberry apparently hated Star Trek 6 and constantly gave Nick Meyer a hard time. Nick Meyer became one of the greatest contributors to the franchise and he was in fact an outsider who had marginal knowledge of everything. Meyer was in no ways a Trekkie.
My basic point is, these stories and characters sometimes grow beyond the scope and vision of the original creators.
Look at George Lucas and Star Wars. Some of the worst things that ever happened to Star Wars was because of George Lucas.
Roddenberry apparently hated Star Trek 6 and constantly gave Nick Meyer a hard time. Nick Meyer became one of the greatest contributors to the franchise and he was in fact an outsider who had marginal knowledge of everything. Meyer was in no ways a Trekkie.
I personally, love it. It's the best blockbuster of the year so far and after a second watch I find it better than the 09 film and it's probably my second favorite Trek film ever after Undiscovered Country.
I didn't read much of the previous threads, so I apologize if some of my points have been discussed before.
While this film has been pretty well received by fans, I think some die hards tend to think of Trek (mostly TOS) as something more than it really, truly is. Now hold on, I'm not talking smack about it. I love TOS. It's one of my favorite shows and I consider myself a mild Trekkie/Trekker. BUT....as much as I respect the amount of love Trekkies have for this stuff, I think they lose sight of what the show really was when they want to slander the new stuff.
Star Trek was never, ever the ultra highbrow, hard sci-fi show they make it out to be. That is not to say it's not a smart show. It is. It was ahead of it's time even, but the morals and messages were never cryptic or ambiguous. They were always right out in the open, for all to see. Sometimes the characters would even sum up the lesson of the story in their dialogue.
The show also has more action in it then they like to admit to themselves. It is, whether you want to admit it or not, an adventure show. Was action always the driving force of the plot? No. But it was heavily featured. Big and brawny fist fights were a norm, and there was a good deal of space battle as well. Is it especially elaborate or kinetic? Again, no. But it was there and it happened on a semi-regular basis. Just because the action is quaint does not mean it's not action.
And the ruckus being made over the "pointless" shot of Alive Eve in her bra and panties makes me laugh. Are people REALL Y that short sighted to cry foul over this? When every single female on the Enterprise in TOS had comically short skirts/dresses on? What about all the other sexy and scantily clad woman and aliens alike the show would feature? Sex appeal WAS ALWAYS a part of the show. And was that somehow anymore necessary than the panties shot in the new film? No, it was not.
I think fans let their absolute love of the show blind them to some of the aspects of it. That is not to say what they love about it is false, just that they hold it up to be something it might not be.
JJ Abrams does nothing in his two films that aren't prominent in the original series. Ya, it's bigger and shinier, but they are new films. Why hold the fact that new films look better than something 40 years old? Would you prefer the new films look grainy and have cardboard sets?
Back to the film at hand. Like I said, it's fantastic. It has just as much energy and drive the first had while upping the stakes to nail-biting levels. It never once lost sight of it's characters either. Throughout all the chaos that happens in this movie I was shocked at how character focused it all was, even when stuff was blowing up and zooming by. There was a real sense of danger to the film that I loved. It is easily the most intense blockbuster of it's kind since TDK and TDKR. Both of those films managed to build and build momentum and tension to great degree's and keep it going. Same with Into Darkness. The last 30 minutes of this film had me leaning forward in my seat and shaking my leg in anticipation. When a film can get me physically involved, it is doing something right.
The humor was still well balanced and never overshadowed the drama or felt forced. Also, this is a DAMN good looking film. It is a visual marvel. If this doesn't get an Oscar nod for best effects I will be angry indeed. Everything from the starships to the futuristic cities, the effects were just impeccable and very photo-real. If only every major effects/event film can have this level of competence....
NOW FOR THE SPOILER TALK!!!!
And last but not least: I can see why some people are taken out of the film when the reverse death scene from Khan happens. You felt it was too familiar and it took you out of the moment. Fair enough. But I feel some people miss the point of the scene. Some are crying that it is just a shameless, hollow rip-off of Wrath. Not so. Not so at all. They are two alike scenes, with two different dramatic intentions. The scene in Wrath is actually more simple on that basis. It's meant to show the sadness that these old, dear friends feel as one of them dies. It's sad because we've known them for a long time and they've known each other for longer. The scene in Darkness is different because it's meant to show that Spock is finally willing to let his emotions come to the surface and embrace his feelings while Kirk is finally able to express humility and fear. It's tragic because it took this circumstance for them to finally come to terms with the biggest struggle within themselves. Again, I can see how the mirroring of Wrath can ruin it for people, but the difference in the dramatic meaning and the good performances sell it for me.
My basic point is, these stories and characters sometimes grow beyond the scope and vision of the original creators.
Roddenberry apparently hated Star Trek 6 and constantly gave Nick Meyer a hard time. Nick Meyer became one of the greatest contributors to the franchise and he was in fact an outsider who had marginal knowledge of everything. Meyer was in no ways a Trekkie.
I agree, and Star Trek has grown well beyond it's original vision. But when it grows so far beyond that it becomes barely recognizable, you can hardly fault fans for speaking out. I never saw what was so rotten about the Star Wars prequels, but I am not the biggest SW fan. However, I can see why taking a classic character like Vader and turning him into a guy that can't control his emotions due to girlfriend and mother issues would ruin him for a lot of people. That's exactly what they've done with the Spock I used to know.
Meyer proved you don't have to be a Trekkie to make good Star Trek. However, JJ is no Nick Meyer and did not benefit from Harve Bennett's production.
Regarding Gene and Meyer: According to Meyer, Gene objected to having subversive elements and overt racism in Starfleet, especially coming from people of Earth (example: Admirals Cartwright and Marcus). Gene felt that we would have evolved beyond such primitive thinking. One of Trek's core themes is humanity growing out of it's infancy. Nick Meyer disagreed:
“If I’m interpreting him correctly and if I’m believing what he said, Mr. Roddenberry really believed in the perfectability of man, of humans, and I have yet to see the evidence for this,”
Meyer won out, but made note of his objections and in the end, managed to write racism in as the reason the mantra changed from "where no man" to "where no one" has gone before. The compromises between Roddenberry's vision and Meyer's gave us two of the best Trek films.
But it's not barely recognizable...there are just fans who refuse to accept these movies because of their view of what Star Trek should be. The only time Spock couldn't control his emotions is when Kirk died and it was very similar to what happened in Amok Time when he discovered Kirk wasn't dead and expresses joy in front of everyone.
Harve Bennett was fired off Star Trek 6 so maybe it was just Meyer by himself. In fact Bennett's idea for Star Trek 6 was: With the looming 25th anniversary of the original series in 1991, producer Harve Bennett revisited an idea Ralph Winter had for the fourth film: a prequel featuring young versions of Kirk and Spock at Starfleet Academy. The prequel was designed to be a way of keeping the characters, if not the actors, in what was called "Top Gun in outer space". Bennett and The Final Frontier writer David Loughery wrote a script entitled The Academy Years, where Dr. Leonard McCoy talks about how he met Kirk and Spock while addressing a group of Academy graduates. The script shows Kirk and Spock's upbringing, their meeting McCoy and Montgomery Scott at the Academy and defeating a villain before parting ways. The script would have established that George Kirk, James T. Kirk's father, was a pilot who went missing—presumed dead—during a warp experiment with Scott. The script is set before the "enlightenment" of the Federation; slavery and racism are common, with Spock being bullied because he is the only Vulcan student. Nurse Christine Chapel cameos in the script's climax.
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.
I agree. I am a new fan. I vaguely remember the old show, never could get into the other series, and the only movie I cared about from the past was the one with the whales. This new movie I like because it is exciting, and humorous as well. It's fun! I go to the movies to have fun, and this new Star Trek is providing that. I hope it continues it's steam, and starts to do it's own thing, and pretty much forget about the hard core fanboys. They had their shows! This one is for the new generation.
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.
t:
