Star Trek 3

[Brandon Rhea]

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/roberto-orci-to-direct-star-trek-3-1201180140/

Roberto Orci will reportedly be directing Star Trek 3 (or Star Trek 13, if you prefer).

 

[Cassanova]

And you, being a Trekkie from before your Star Warrior days feel "how" about this?

 

[Brandon Rhea]

And you, being a Trekkie from before your Star Warrior days feel "how" about this?

Could go either way. He wrote the first two, which I liked in spite of themselves, but he also wrote the Transformers movies (Michael Bay notwithstanding).

I'll say this for him: of all the people behind Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness, he's the biggest Star Trek fan. He's the one who gets it. My hope is that those impulses outweigh the PEWPEW tendencies of J.J. Abrams who, despite making Star Trek popular again, never really understood the franchise.

 

[Cassanova]

...purist scum.

:P

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I know you're kidding, but there is a balance that the films can strike that, so far, they haven't. I don't mind the spectacle, but if it lacks substance then it's just not Star Trek. It can have the characters and it can have the Enterprise, but that doesn't automatically mean it's Star Trek.

 

[Wing]

Okay, time for Klingons plz.

 

[Cassanova]

I know you're kidding, but there is a balance that the films can strike that, so far, they haven't. I don't mind the spectacle, but if it lacks substance then it's just not Star Trek. It can have the characters and it can have the Enterprise, but that doesn't automatically mean it's Star Trek.

I agree, but if you want a film that feels like Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture... go watch Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture. All franchises have to evolve to survive. Yes, that often upsets purists (in the case of Star Trek, I'll respectfully use you as an example) who want it to feel like it was before. I don't think it matters, being honest. I'd rather not watch an interchangable plot with the same format that has been plugged for 10 films, three tv shows, etc.

The younger kids of these days want more. For these franchises to suceed; they have to evolve. To branch outwards from their original format.

Anyway, I digress.

Personally, regardless of the trollop of new vs old, 'real' or 'fake'... I'll see Star Trek (1)3.

 

[jpchewy01]

I agree, but if you want a film that feels like Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture... go watch Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture. All franchises have to evolve to survive. Yes, that often upsets purists (in the case of Star Trek, I'll respectfully use you as an example) who want it to feel like it was before. I don't think it matters, being honest. I'd rather not watch an interchangable plot with the same format that has been plugged for 10 films, three tv shows, etc.

The younger kids of these days want more. For these franchises to suceed; they have to evolve. To branch outwards from their original format.

Anyway, I digress.

Personally, regardless of the trollop of new vs old, 'real' or 'fake'... I'll see Star Trek (1)3.

It's not a question of a franchise evolving, it's the problem that the newer Star Trek films simply haven't been intelligent. Do people want to see Chris Pine and Benedict Cumberbatch sit at a table and talk four two hours? No. But the films can at least deal with issues like Star Trek always has. You want space spectacle? Go see Star Wars: Episode VII. You want intelligent science fiction? Watch a Star Trek movie.

 

[Galavant]

I don't know, Orci seems to fanboi really hard and I'm not sure if that's really for the better. I think a lot of it will also depend on the two new guys brought in to co-write. I hope it'll end up being an awesome Trek story, that goes back to the more intellectual side of the TOS, whereas the past two films have been pretty good adaptations for its more action-adventure side. More of The Cage, as opposed to Arena which is something it really needs to do (and do well) if it's going to fully break into its own and keep from sliding into a pattern of ever diminishing returns as the franchise offers nothing new.

I think it'll be average overall though. It won't be as good as either Into Darkness or 2009, in terms of critical reaction or box office take but solid enough to keep Trek chugging along. Maybe poor enough to warrant some changes, but hopefully it'll at least do something innovative instead of just being par for the course as the last two films have been, decent enough as they were.

I know you're kidding, but there is a balance that the films can strike that, so far, they haven't. I don't mind the spectacle, but if it lacks substance then it's just not Star Trek. It can have the characters and it can have the Enterprise, but that doesn't automatically mean it's Star Trek.

I disagree. Well okay I agree, they haven't struck the balance they need to, but I do think they're still Star Trek. It's not perfect and it's certainly never going to be Trek as we know it as long it's confined to being a big screen, summer tent pole, but to me it easily surpasses the likes of Voyager, the majority of the TNG movies, and the first few seasons of Enterprise in being Trek. It certainly has nothing on the best of what else Trek has to offer, but I'll take it over some of the other ideas that were considered, and way before going back to the TNG era of stuff. My problem with it is that it's boldly going nowhere new really. Sure it's making money, and keeping the Trek name out there, but it hasn't done anything a Trek fan hasn't seen done before, and in many cases done better.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I agree, but if you want a film that feels like Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture... go watch Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture. All franchises have to evolve to survive. Yes, that often upsets purists (in the case of Star Trek, I'll respectfully use you as an example) who want it to feel like it was before. I don't think it matters, being honest. I'd rather not watch an interchangable plot with the same format that has been plugged for 10 films, three tv shows, etc.

The younger kids of these days want more. For these franchises to suceed; they have to evolve. To branch outwards from their original format.

Anyway, I digress.

Personally, regardless of the trollop of new vs old, 'real' or 'fake'... I'll see Star Trek (1)3.

I would never want a Star Trek film like Star Trek: The Motion Picture. It was boring, poorly written, poorly paced, and utterly pretentious. A clear example of what happens when Gene Roddenberry had too much control over the franchise (see also: TNG seasons 1 and 2).

Like JP said, it has to be intelligent. As I said, the spectacle is fine (and I even liked the last two movies). But if there’s no core, if there’s no oomph, if there’s nothing of substance that has a good message, then it’s not Star Trek. The evolution of a franchise can only work if the franchise, at its core, is still recognizable. Otherwise, they should go make a new franchise.

I'm not a purist. I'm not saying nothing can change. I'm saying that if you remove the core of Star Trek, then it doesn't matter if you have a character named James Kirk who captains a ship called the Enterprise. Without the core, it's not Star Trek anymore.

And by the way, I'm not saying that the two JJ Trek films completely missed the mark. Star Trek 2009 didn't have much allegory, but it had good themes about friendship. Star Trek Into Darkness had allegory, it was just light on that allegory and not really timely (we get it, drone strikes are bad). I liked them, but they can do better.

I think Orci can do a better job at bringing a better message to his Star Trek film than Abrams did (assuming he avoids his libertarian, conspiracy theorist nonsense that he spouts on Twitter). Whether or not he's a competent enough director to totally pull it off remains to be seen.

I disagree. Well okay I agree, they haven't struck the balance they need to, but I do think they're still Star Trek. It's not perfect and it's certainly never going to be Trek as we know it as long it's confined to being a big screen, summer tent pole, but to me it easily surpasses the likes of Voyager, the majority of the TNG movies, and the first few seasons of Enterprise in being Trek. It certainly has nothing on the best of what else Trek has to offer, but I'll take it over some of the other ideas that were considered, and way before going back to the TNG era of stuff. My problem with it is that it's boldly going nowhere new really. Sure it's making money, and keeping the Trek name out there, but it hasn't done anything a Trek fan hasn't seen done before, and in many cases done better.

I could be wrong but I think you're confusing enjoyability with whether it's true to Star Trek. Star Trek is all about real-world ideas wrapped up in nice-looking, action adventure, exploratory package. Voyager, for example, may have been totally mehhh with a totally botched execution, but its essence is what Star Trek should be. It just wasn't as enjoyable as the fast-paced thrill rides that JJ Trek were designed to be.

 

[Green Ranger]

star trek is for nerds

give me your lunch money

 

[Brandon Rhea]

star trek is for nerds

give me your lunch money

rude

 

[Jacques]

rude

Don't mind him. He's just saving up his stolen money to buy tickets to the Power Rangers movie.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Don't mind him. He's just saving up his stolen money to buy tickets to the Power Rangers movie.

That movie should have Benedict Cumberbatch.

p.s.
Totally not playing Khan.

 

[Johnnysaurus Rex]

That movie should have Benedict Cumberbatch.

p.s.
Totally not playing Khan.

Totally not Zordon

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Totally not Zordon

We already have the perfect candidate for Zordon

 

[Green Ranger]

Benedict Cumberbatch will be playing the Red Ranger.

And the Blue Ranger.

And the Black Ranger.

And the Pink Ranger.

And the Yellow Ranger.

And Zordon.

And Rita Repulsa.

And Goldar.

And Alpha 5.

It's an all-Cumberbatch cast!

 

[BLADE]

Do people want to see Chris Pine and Benedict Cumberbatch sit at a table and talk four two hours?

See? We got all kinds-a-demographics. We got your prepubescent girl witches, your bitchy-coming-of-age girl teens, we got your Benedict Cumberbatches, your sexy vampires (possibly developing a conscience...sexily?), and even the notoriously hard-to-please Hitler demographic (Der Fuhrer says "Batfleck? More like Fatfleck™*")

Fatfleck is a trademark of Prospero Industries; Patent Pending

 

[jpchewy01]

They'd be debating the merits of the Prime Directive as it applied to the inhabitants of a planet that orbits a rare grey giant star, giving everything on the planet a monochrome grey colour. The beings that inhabit this world are formless blobs of grey fatty substance that speak in monotone voices. One scene would be devoted to a 15 minute long speech delivered, without subtitles, by the leader of the grey blobs in their native language (which just sounds like really boring nasally sounds) about why spending should be cut on the planet's planned project to build a giant machine dedicated to yawning. All of this would be interspersed with scenes set at the Senate of the Federation which are essentially lifted out of the Star Wars prequels.

Do you still want to see this movie?

 

[Kaeb]

Orci and his typical writing partner are pretty ****ing terrible scribes.