Star Trek Into Darkness - Part 6

[Avangarde]

Anyone else want to see Sarek make a make a cameo in the next film?

What I want to see is a Good Orginal enemy, something that will make the new one better than the last one. They have a huge catalogue of potential enemies to invent. Hell they should make a Breen the next enemy with a malicious leader of some description. They could work off the angle that you don't know what they look like under those odd helmets they wear to keep alive. Either way plenty to work with.

 

[Alex_Spider]

Exclusive: J.J. Abrams Apologizes for His Lens Flares



http://www.craveonline.com/film/interviews/569755-exclusive-j-j-abrams-apologizes-for-his-lens-flares

Was about time. Next he should apologise for his awful directing on the series and stay out of future ST movies for good.

 

[georgec]

Was about time. Next he should apologise for his awful directing on the series and stay out of future ST movies for good.

Not sure about the first thing, but after jumping to SW you might get your wish on that second one.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

What I want to see is a Good Orginal enemy, something that will make the new one better than the last one. They have a huge catalogue of potential enemies to invent. Hell they should make a Breen the next enemy with a malicious leader of some description. They could work off the angle that you don't know what they look like under those odd helmets they wear to keep alive. Either way plenty to work with.

I would like to see a Tholian-Breen Alliance. I think that would be Awesome.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Was about time. Next he should apologise for his awful directing on the series and stay out of future ST movies for good.

JJ Abrams shouldn't have to apologize for anything. If you don't like his Star Trek films then don't watch them.

 

[Alex_Spider]

JJ Abrams shouldn't have to apologize for anything. If you don't like his Star Trek films then don't watch them.

I know. I did watch them though since I am a fan of the ST universe, in hope they would be somewhat decent and true to the principles of an intelligent sic fi and philosophical themes that the original series was all about. And I got none of that but a huge disappointment. So, no more Abrams ST or SW flicks for me.

 

[Picard Sisko]

The problem is that "intelligent sci-fi with philosophical themes" probably wouldn't sell. Focusing on SFX and spectacle is what appeals to mass viewers.

 

[Alex_Spider]

The problem is that "intelligent sci-fi with philosophical themes" probably wouldn't sell. Focusing on SFX and spectacle is what appeals to mass viewers.

Well then, let the mass viewers have their mindless cgi fests and spectacle. Studios and directors like Abrams and Bay won't get a dime from me anymore and many other fans, if they keep with that mindset.

 

[Lando81]

Well then, let the mass viewers have their mindless cgi fests and spectacle. Studios and directors like Abrams and Bay won't get a dime from me anymore and many other fans, if they keep with that mindset.

Ah yes. That "intelligent sci-Fi" is what made Nemesis, The Search for Spock and The Voyage Home so good, right? Abrams has made SMART action films that respect the universe that came before without being hindered by it. You just go to show that people will complain and whine about anything.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Well then, let the mass viewers have their mindless cgi fests and spectacle. Studios and directors like Abrams and Bay won't get a dime from me anymore and many other fans, if they keep with that mindset.

JJ Abrams' Star Trek films certainly focus on action and spectacle, but I don't think it's fair to call them mindless or even put them in the same league as Michael Bay films.

 

[Alex_Spider]

JJ Abrams' Star Trek films certainly focus on action and spectacle, but I don't think it's fair to call them mindless or even put them in the same league as Michael Bay films.

They both share similar traits. One focuses on explosions and toilet jokes, instead of developing characters and story and the other one on lens flare orgy and fast paced action sequences that are in the wrong franchise. They both rely more on cheap gimmicks and heavy cgi and they diminish the artistic significance of classic filming. That's why I put them on the same level.
I loved Lost, well until that awful final season but with ST Abrams disappointed a lot of fans. He made the franchise focus on something else entirely.

 

[JAK®]

Michael Bay and J.J Abrams use tons of practical effects in their films. The subject matter calls for a lot of CGI but even then they use practical effects as much as they can.

 

[Octoberist]

They both share similar traits. One focuses on explosions and toilet jokes, instead of developing characters and story and the other one on lens flare orgy and fast paced action sequences that are in the wrong franchise. They both rely more on cheap gimmicks and heavy cgi and they diminish the artistic significance of classic filming. That's why I put them on the same level.
I loved Lost, well until that awful final season but with ST Abrams disappointed a lot of fans. He made the franchise focus on something else entirely.

But I think JJ's never that crass or mean-spirited as Bay, but I see what you're going for.

I think JJ is Michael Bay done right, if that makes sense.

With Lost, JJ wasn't involved with the later seasons. But with 'Into Darkenss', he was. Not the worse Star Trek but boy it ran of steam fast, which sucks for a new start for the franchise.

 

[Alex_Spider]

But I think JJ's never that crass or mean-spirited as Bay, but I see what you're going for.

I think JJ is Michael Bay done right, if that makes sense.

With Lost, JJ wasn't involved with the later seasons. But with 'Into Darkenss', he was. Not the worse Star Trek but boy it ran of steam fast, which sucks for a new start for the franchise.

Yeah, Abrams certainly has more quality in his works than Bay, but still I wish he treated with more respect a classic franchise like ST, without trying to make it "hip and cool".
Lost is easily one of my favourite tv series of all time.

 

[Octoberist]

Well, to me, I applaud his first Star Trek. It's a fun, fun movie that I tend to go back to. But I thought 'Into Darkness' could've been the evolution of that, you know? Slowly you see the characters grow into the characters we knew (or will know) by the time the movies get into the original series timeline (tangent or not.)

But it's more of the same, especially with Kirk. Not expecting to see him change overnight, but wish he had the more..confident demeanor of Shatner's Kirk. More calm and collective, but still arrogant and funny.

 

[Picard Sisko]

JJ Abrams is basically Michael Bay with a brain.

 

[Lighthouse]

JJ Abrams is basically Michael Bay with a brain.

Ummm......kinda agree, but at the same time.......

 

[Young Superman]

Do you think we will see Spock Prime again in the next film?

 

[Dark Raven]

Do you think we will see Spock Prime again in the next film?

Leonard Nimoy is not exactly in his prime these days, so probably not.

 

[Panthro]

Do you think we will see Spock Prime again in the next film?

I kinda don't want him to. Leonard Nimoy's awesome and all but he just feels out of place and he's a constant reminder of the old universe. It's like if Michael Keaton's Batman somehow got sucked into the universe of Christian Bale's Batman.

 

[Soapy]

That's not really the same thing.

 

[Picard Sisko]

The original Star Trek and JJ Abram's movies technically take place in the same universe but happen to be in different timelines. As Soapy said it's just not the same thing.

 

[roach]

STID just hit Netflix today.

 

[MrMaooz]

And I watched it on Netflix. Still awesome! t:

 

[roach]

I would like to see the next movie be a modern reboot take on 'Balance of Terror'...maybe with Klingons instead of Romulans.