Jump to content

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Mommar said:

Lucy in the Sky, his debut, is a slightly more grounded story about a NASA astronaut dealing with life on Earth. That movie was poorly-recieved by critics — and flopped at the box office, making $320,000 on a budget of $27 million,”

 

HOLE. LEE. CRAP.  

Yikes, I looked at his filmography and its not inspiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Knight26 said:

Yikes, I looked at his filmography and its not inspiring.

That's not a filmography, that's a suicide note.

I'll admit, I am flat surprised that they were able to find someone (or several someones) clueless enough to agree to finance a fourth installment in J.J. Abrams's unsuccessful attempt to hard reboot the Star Trek franchise.  That it's a terrible idea should've been glaringly obvious given that none of the three existing J.J. Abrams Star Trek films was an unqualified success.  Both Star Trek '09 and Star Trek: Into Darkness fell so far short of Paramount's earnings projections that they barely managed to turn a profit at all, and Star Trek: Beyond flopped at the box office and finished over $50M short of breaking even.  That should've been warning enough, never Netflix and Amazon both reportedly suffering buyer's remorse over bankrolling their respective Star Trek streaming shows or the licensees largely refusing to touch J.J.-Trek unless forced to and reportedly opting to pass on both Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Picard due to the J.J.-Trek aesthetic being a massive no-sell condition for many Star Trek fans.

The only explanation I can think of - besides Springtime for Hitler - is that someone's got the rose tinted glasses on.  I think it was Bojack Horseman that noted that when you look at a person (or thing) through rose-tinted glasses all the red flags just look like flags.  Another J.J.-Trek film is a red flag factory on a scale not normally seen outside the PRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, technoblue said:

I'll go see it too. The only film from the reboot series that I've been disappointed in thus far is Into Darkness.

Same.

5 hours ago, Big s said:

I actually kinda like the Star Trek reboot films. They’re usually fun and imaginative, but definitely not for the hard core fan

Pretty much.

-b.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

meh,  I don't care enough about star trek anymore to get worked up about it.

The Kelvin timeline or whatever term they are calling it now is "OK"  no great but not terrible.

However Discovery..  Hard pass.

This new Piccard Series..  probably a Hard pass.

New Kelvin timeline Star Trek.. maybe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JB0 said:

Into Darkness was awful, on pretty ruch every level.

The first of the series was an interesting take on things. I have complaints, but it was noless un-Trek than, say, First Contact.

I'd beg to differ on First Contact's behalf.  Star Trek: First Contact was 50% terrible space!zombie movie with Star Trek characters, but it was also 50% a genuine Star Trek time travel plot about humanity's first first contact and the creation of warp drive with some decent character drama about Zefram Cochrane floundering in the gap between his real self and what the crew who only know him from what history books say about his future self think he is.  That's 49% more Star Trek than Star Trek '09 was.  Star Trek '09 was more like the Futurama Star Trek episode, a non-Star Trek plot starring a complete idiot loaded with a bunch of in-jokes and references to Star Trek's original series.

Star Trek: Into Darkness was just a mistake, start-to-finish.  Trying to remake one of the most celebrated Star Trek films - Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan - would've been a mistake even with the best staff available because of how iconic it is.  It was like announcing plans to remake Casablanca or The Princess Bride.  

 

5 hours ago, JB0 said:

I didn't see Beyond because Into Darkness was so bad.

If you saw Star Trek: Nemesis, then you didn't miss much.  Star Trek: Beyond isn't a flat-out remake of Star Trek: Nemesis, but it was certainly copying its homework.

 

1 hour ago, tekering said:

Still a better sequel than The Last Jedi.  :p

That, good sir, is the very definition of "damned by faint praise".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

If you saw Star Trek: Nemesis, then you didn't miss much.  Star Trek: Beyond isn't a flat-out remake of Star Trek: Nemesis, but it was certainly copying its homework.

There's a part of me that wants to strongly disagree simply because Beyond was such a better movie than Nemesis and also there aren't many similarities from a plot point. At least none that I can remember or that stand-out.

I still maintain that Beyond was fun and highly underrated. 

And yeah, the directing credits for the guy that they have tapped for this new Trek are uuuugggggllllyyy.

-b.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, valkyrie_cadman said:

let Quentin Tarantino's Star Trek be the fourth one...

I'm a huge fan of Tarantino's, and a lifelong, die-hard Star Trek fan, but "Quentin Tarantino's Star Trek" may be the stupidest idea I've ever heard of.  <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, valkyrie_cadman said:

Why cant we kill two birds with one stone and let Quentin Tarantino's Star Trek be the fourth one.....no matter how dark or absurd it gets...

"Dark" and "absurd" are exactly why Quentin Tarantino should never be allowed within five hundred yards of a Star Trek project.

Both J.J-Trek and Star Trek: Discovery tried very hard to be "dark", and came off as pretty absurd in the process, but all that darkness accomplished at the end of the day was to leave the audience suspecting the writers and showrunners were a bit dim.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kanedas Bike said:

I still maintain that Beyond was fun and highly underrated. 

Beyond was bad.  It wasn't Into Darkness horse-crap bad.  It was just bad because Simon Pegg isn't a talented sci-fi writer.  But it was written by somebody who understood and at least attempted to embody the original series ethos even if he wasn't talented enough to actually pull it off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

"Dark" and "absurd" are exactly why Quentin Tarantino should never be allowed within five hundred yards of a Star Trek project.

Both J.J-Trek and Star Trek: Discovery tried very hard to be "dark", and came off as pretty absurd in the process, but all that darkness accomplished at the end of the day was to leave the audience suspecting the writers and showrunners were a bit dim.

 

 

Agreed re: Tarantino, but I think JJ’s vision was more Action Adventure than anything else. And with that the “spirit” of Trek wasn’t well represented. 

30 minutes ago, Mommar said:

Beyond was bad.  It wasn't Into Darkness horse-crap bad.  It was just bad because Simon Pegg isn't a talented sci-fi writer.  But it was written by somebody who understood and at least attempted to embody the original series ethos even if he wasn't talented enough to actually pull it off.

Agree about the attempt to deliver on the original series, agree to disagree about if Beyond was good or not. 
 

-b.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Kanedas Bike said:

Agreed re: Tarantino, but I think JJ’s vision was more Action Adventure than anything else. And with that the “spirit” of Trek wasn’t well represented. 

I'm sure this'll be a very unpopular opinion, but I think Quentin Tarantino is probably the single most overrated filmmaker in Hollywood.

His school of filmmaking relies too much on style-over-substance minimalist storytelling freighted with over-the-top effects-heavy action sequences.  It's something that demonstrably just doesn't work in Star Trek, as evidenced by the slow decline of Star Trek: Voyager's ratings as the series gradually shifted its focus to more action-heavy episodes, the decline of Star Trek's film franchise as First ContactInsurrection, and Nemesis increasingly leaned on action sequences, the continued ratings slide of Star Trek: Enterprise, the first two J.J. Abrams Star Trek reboot films barely breaking even, Star Trek: Beyond finishing well in the red, and Star Trek: Discovery falling flat with Star Trek fans.

So we're left to wonder why Star Trek's producers are so determined to stick with an approach that demonstrably does not work... especially when fan projects are eating their lunch by showing that fans vastly prefer Star Trek that keeps to the spirit of the original.  Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

Edited by Seto Kaiba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

I'm sure this'll be a very unpopular opinion, but I think Quentin Tarantino is probably the single most overrated filmmaker in Hollywood.

His school of filmmaking relies too much on style-over-substance minimalist storytelling freighted with over-the-top effects-heavy action sequences.  It's something that demonstrably just doesn't work in Star Trek, as evidenced by the slow decline of Star Trek: Voyager's ratings as the series gradually shifted its focus to more action-heavy episodes, the decline of Star Trek's film franchise as First ContactInsurrection, and Nemesis increasingly leaned on action sequences, the continued ratings slide of Star Trek: Enterprise, the first two J.J. Abrams Star Trek reboot films barely breaking even, Star Trek: Beyond finishing well in the red, and Star Trek: Discovery falling flat with Star Trek fans.

So we're left to wonder why Star Trek's producers are so determined to stick with an approach that demonstrably does not work... especially when fan projects are eating their lunch by showing that fans vastly prefer Star Trek that keeps to the spirit of the original.  Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

Just to be clear, I agree that I don't want a Tarantino Trek movie.

Also, I grew up with Trek, I'd like to see it do well and appease hardcore and casual fans alike, but there were many times that I found Trek "boring". And if legacy-Trek were viable as a property there wouldn't have been a crack for JJ Trek to slip into and 'Star Trek' wouldn't have been as lauded as a much needed new vision when it first came out.

With that, I agree, in that Trek need(s) to be refreshed, again, the challenge is figuring out how to do that well.

-b.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only problem with Beyond was Idris Alba's character.  They had a first rate actor on a third rate character.  The camaraderie of the main cast FELT like a trek film - for the first time in the Reboot movies.  Though I still feel that Spock is too emotional in this version. 

For Iv they are supposedly going to get a smaller budget - and I don't think that should be a problem due to the amount that was wasted in Beyond on Pizzaz for no reason.  The Yorktown station being one example - whoever designed that (in universe) should be shot.  Whoever came up with it for the movie was only interested in visual flair and not a lick for practicality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Kanedas Bike said:

Agreed re: Tarantino, but I think JJ’s vision was more Action Adventure than anything else. And with that the “spirit” of Trek wasn’t well represented. 

I came out of the 09 film thinking "Abrams wanted to do Star Wars".

 

Pity he got the chance(though I dunno how much of 7 was his fault vs Disney's).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just what I always wanted: to see a dumpster fire go off a cliff aboard a train, and crash at the bottom as a trainwreck.

My bucket list is now complete, knowing that not only has Star Trek completely self-destructed, but that pretty much all of my go-to sci fi and other fiction has pretty much done the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Dynaman said:

The Yorktown station being one example - whoever designed that (in universe) should be shot.  Whoever came up with it for the movie was only interested in visual flair and not a lick for practicality.

It fitted pretty well into a universe where you can combine saucers and warp nacelles in the most ludicrous configurations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, electric indigo said:

It fitted pretty well into a universe where you can combine saucers and warp nacelles in the most ludicrous configurations.

They has some semi-plausiable hand wavium for the saucer and boom design.  The Yorktown station where ships from outside dock in the middle after going through a long tube makes zero sense even IN a universe where the saucer and boom design exists.  The other more important part is that they wasted a boatload of money on CGI for that effect.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...