Star Trek 3 May Be Fast and Furious In Space
- Thread starter harpere
- Start date
Well, atleast we won't figure out the big plot twist months before production begins. So they won't tell us repeatedly that "no guys it's totally not it!", then make that the twist, because mystery box reasons.
I have never seen a single episode of Star Trek, but shouldn't a Star Trek movie be kinda, you know, LIKE STAR TREK?
Naw brah, cuz liek Dork Trek is totes liek all diplomasnore an' moraliturds lulz. NuTrek is AWESUM!!!1 *guitar solo* for liek propa bros yeah? PEW-PEW-PEW IMMA FIRIN MAH PHAZORZ! lulzTheMightyMeekling said:
Seriously though, there was some vague glimmer of hope that now JJ "fuck your childhood" Abrams had waddled off to cop a squat over Star Wars, NuTrek(formerly known as JJTrek, and "wtf is this shite and why did I pay £7 to see it?!") would be able to at least rise to the level of a Generations(which was pretty blegh but not as bad as some claimed) or a Final Frontier; instead it seems we're not even getting a Nemesis.
I look forward to seeing the Enterprise "drifting" around a small moon being chased by a ridiculously over-designed alien ship piloted by a being that just happens to resemble a crude latino stereotype...*shudder*
thinking about it more, i actually wait until JJ is back. doesnt matter if it takes 5 years or more. at least he made a good mix between action and diplomacy.
At least when I watched the Fast & Furious films that Lin directed I can understand wtf is going on in the action scenes, unlike Abrams who in action scenes is a very bad Micheal Bay wanna-be.Metalrocks said:
Adzma said:
You do know that the reboot films have performed far better financially than the originals and even if you take inflation into account 'Into Darkness' crushed 'Wrath of Khan' and 'First Contact'.
People have to realise that the 10 original Star Trek films were not blockbusters and to barely break even is no longer acceptable in the modern film landscape.
What do you mean "may" be? Abrams turned Star Trek into Fast and Furious from the get-go, in a vain attempt to turn it into Top Gun.
I hereby propose a swap: Michael Bay should bring his military-dramaboner "experience" to Star Trek, and Abrams should take his ridiculous lens flare and fetish "enthusiasm" for hardware/gadgetry to Transformers.
I hereby propose a swap: Michael Bay should bring his military-drama
You just chose my reaction for me,thanks!Gordon_4 said:
'Shaka, when the walls fell'
*shakes head*
Edgard Wright or Frakes would have been fantastic, but I'm really not terribly enthused with this guy being chosen.
Not to say he wouldn't be able to pull of action and great visuals,but Star Trek is about characters too, and well....
Yeah, FF isn't exactly Shakespeare, is it?
If anyone needs me I'll be swimming to Tenagra...
Having recently rewatched the entire run of Star Trek I'd say something like 80-90% of the episodes are utterly forgettable boring dross. Funnier were the episodes without a consistent moral stance or that undermined the moral stance of a previous episode.Ark of the Covetor said:
Well that's one way to take a huge dump over three generations worth of cult classics. Are they even trying? Or are they purposefully destroying the entire franchise?
Actually, that's probably it. Some passive aggressive sport jocks wintered over from the 70s are finally getting their revenge on Trek. And making millions by shoving this trite shit down an unsuspecting new generation's throats.
I'm not happy about what's happened to Star Trek; I never imagined it would be worse than what happened to Star Wars. But here we are.
Actually, that's probably it. Some passive aggressive sport jocks wintered over from the 70s are finally getting their revenge on Trek. And making millions by shoving this trite shit down an unsuspecting new generation's throats.
I'm not happy about what's happened to Star Trek; I never imagined it would be worse than what happened to Star Wars. But here we are.
Yes, true, and Star Wars Episode 1 beat Ep 4-6 together by double or so. No solace there, at least not for me. I don't think that's really a valid comparison though, since the later films where only blockbusters because of the legacy of the previous ones. More interesting is whether they performed to expectations; I can imagine Paramount expected even more out of Trek, although that's speculation on my part.P-89 Scorpion said:
There is that. I was really annoyed that the new stuff was in a YAAR (yet another alternate reality), but now I've come to be grateful for it.008Zulu said:
Actually the original trilogy made way more (several hundred million dollars more) than the prequel trilogy when the numbers are adjusted for inflation (and curb stomp all trek).raankh said:
If you don't adjust the numbers for inflation 'Return of the Jedi' in 1983 dollars made more than any except 'Into Darkness' world wide and in USA only Empire is the only one to be beat by both reboot trek's.
Unless it involves a dimension-hopping-time-traveling Tasha Yar battling the USS-Steve Jobs' Enterprise, I'm not sold.
It never actually came back; it's just that someone re-purposed its corpse to make easy money.
Mate, Star Trek is dead. Has been for over a decade.canadamus_prime said:
It never actually came back; it's just that someone re-purposed its corpse to make easy money.
Taking the films further and further into the action-spectacle direction makes the prospects of a TV revival worse and worse. No TV series could possibly hope to please the new fans of the current film franchise. The movies may draw in a larger audience, but the huge numbers of that demographic will only shrink with time without endearing a new generation of fans.
I don't know if it's been dead for over a decade, but it's certainly been dead for quite some time. Since 2009 at least.Atmos Duality said: