Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Star Trek sequel scheduled for May 17, 2013 Release


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
437 replies to this topic

#381 of 438 OFFLINE   Dave Scarpa

Dave Scarpa

    Producer



  • 5,302 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 08 1999

Posted April 17 2013 - 07:24 AM

Cumberbatch's ship reminds me of the enterprise being outgunned by Nero in the last movie and Shinzon in Nemesis , why does the villian have to have a honkin big ship?

 

Now Post Boston In Darkness has positioned itself with the unenviable task of having to overcome the hours of televised Terror reports, now there is no way  the producers could have known of the event, but maybe we should have steered clear of the terrorist angle all together, cause to be truthful I'm frankly sick of it. Plus It would be nice to get a story that is not so Dark,violent and desperate, Star Trek was never about revenge, but it seems like that is a chief tennent of the JJ verse. Spock Argues argues for it against nero in the first film, and it looks like Revenge plays a central theme here again.


My DVD Collection

The Megaplex

#382 of 438 OFFLINE   Nelson Au

Nelson Au

    Executive Producer



  • 11,686 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 1999

Posted April 17 2013 - 09:00 AM

I was thinking all the same thing Dave, the massive ship against the Enterprise. Been there.

 

Then regarding the terror angle, I was thinking more if the studio would postpone the release of the film a bit. But given it's over a month away, perhaps not.

 

On the darkness angle, I was wondering yesterday if they are simply doing the same thing, subconsciously or not, that the Original Star Wars trilogy did, middle film is the dark one. 



#383 of 438 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 23,085 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted April 17 2013 - 09:05 AM

Then regarding the terror angle, I was thinking more if the studio would postpone the release of the film a bit. But given it's over a month away, perhaps not.

 

The summer movie schedule is way too crowded for that to happen. And certainly no disrespect to folks touched by the bombing but most people have very, very short memories so it will have virtually no effect on audiences seeing the movie.


Edited by TravisR, April 17 2013 - 09:06 AM.


#384 of 438 OFFLINE   Nelson Au

Nelson Au

    Executive Producer



  • 11,686 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 1999

Posted April 17 2013 - 11:24 AM

Travis, you're probably right.

 

Potential spoilery speculation:

 

In very quickly skimming over the comments on the trekmovie site of their scene by scene analysis of the new trailer, one poster comments that the "You are a pawn" line to Kirk was not spoken by Harrison. That made me wonder if he was implying it was Pike. If they do a Mission: Impossible and make Pike a traitor, I'll really be pissed. I highly doubt this is the case, but it made me wonder.

 

So they are calling that massive star destroyer starship Dreadnought class.



#385 of 438 OFFLINE   Van594

Van594

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 164 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 27 2006

Posted April 17 2013 - 11:52 AM

As soon as I saw that third trailer and listened to the way the lines were being said by Cumberbatch and then seeing the future looking Federation ship I thought that's Picard from the future...even looks like a younger version. Hey why not, it's a totally different timeline and of course we have the whole Shinzon thing, mirror universe thing etc...any number of reasons to explain a bad Picard. For some reason, though I always liked Jean Luc, I wouldn't mind this. Certainly more interesting to me than a Khan or Gary Mitchell. Just a thought.



#386 of 438 OFFLINE   Sean Bryan

Sean Bryan

    Sean Bryan



  • 2,987 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969
  • Real Name:Sean

Posted April 17 2013 - 06:38 PM

Star Trek was never about revenge, but it seems like that is a chief tennent of the JJ verse

Wrath of Khan and First Contact certainly dealt with themes of revenge. I can't imagine there would be any change to the release of the film because of the terror attack in Boston. If so, then shouldn't Iron Man 3 be postponed as well? Neither is going to happen. While there may be thin thematic connections between some events in these movies and real life tragedy, people still want escapist entertainment where they can watch fictional heroes confront and defeat fictional villains. Only if the movies actually depicted a similar event (like Gangster Squad being delayed to film a new climax because of the original's similarity to Aurora) would I think it would even be a consideration. I don't think that is the case here.

Edited by Sean Bryan, April 18 2013 - 04:27 AM.

I don't believe in transcending the genre, I believe IN the genre - Joss Whedon

#387 of 438 OFFLINE   Lou Sytsma

Lou Sytsma

    Producer



  • 5,561 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 01 1998

Posted April 18 2013 - 05:57 AM

As soon as I saw that third trailer and listened to the way the lines were being said by Cumberbatch and then seeing the future looking Federation ship I thought that's Picard from the future...even looks like a younger version. Hey why not, it's a totally different timeline and of course we have the whole Shinzon thing, mirror universe thing etc...any number of reasons to explain a bad Picard. For some reason, though I always liked Jean Luc, I wouldn't mind this. Certainly more interesting to me than a Khan or Gary Mitchell. Just a thought.

I sure hope not.  People were complaining upfront about the 2009 movie going to the time travel/alternate timelines well again.

 

That story device needs to be put in one of the Botany Bay sleep chambers and jettisoned into deep space.


Every man is my superior, in that I may learn from him.

#388 of 438 OFFLINE   Chris Will

Chris Will

    Supporting Actor



  • 793 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 07 2003
  • Real Name:Chris WIlliams
  • LocationMontgomery, AL

Posted April 23 2013 - 12:18 PM

Well, thanks to the premiere last night, there are plenty of spoilers out there for those who want them.  I'm one of those, could careless about going in spoiler free.

 

Do not read if you want to remain spoiler free:

 

Spoiler

 

That is all I'll re-post here, if you want to know more it is not hard to find.



#389 of 438 OFFLINE   Ockeghem

Ockeghem

    Ockeghem



  • 9,420 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2007
  • Real Name:Scott D. Atwell

Posted April 23 2013 - 12:48 PM

Well, thanks to the premiere last night, there are plenty of spoilers out there for those who want them.  I'm one of those, could careless about going in spoiler free.

 

Do not read if you want to remain spoiler free:

 

Spoiler

 

That is all I'll re-post here, if you want to know more it is not hard to find.

 

Chris,I'm almost speechless.



#390 of 438 OFFLINE   Chris Will

Chris Will

    Supporting Actor



  • 793 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 07 2003
  • Real Name:Chris WIlliams
  • LocationMontgomery, AL

Posted April 23 2013 - 04:09 PM

I know, I'm just as shocked.  They did a great job keeping this a secret.



#391 of 438 OFFLINE   Ted Van Duyn

Ted Van Duyn

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 185 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 03 2003

Posted April 24 2013 - 02:18 AM

And that's not all.

 

Spoiler



#392 of 438 OFFLINE   todd s

todd s

    Lead Actor



  • 7,003 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 08 1999

Posted April 24 2013 - 04:55 AM

Well, thanks to the premiere last night, there are plenty of spoilers out there for those who want them.  I'm one of those, could careless about going in spoiler free.

 

Do not read if you want to remain spoiler free:

 

Spoiler

 

That is all I'll re-post here, if you want to know more it is not hard to find.

 

 

 

Ugghh...I accidentally read the spoiler. Not blaming you Chris. My carelessness caused it.


Edited by todd s, April 24 2013 - 04:57 AM.

Bring back John Doe! Or at least resolve the cliff-hanger with a 2hr movie or as an extra on a dvd release.

#393 of 438 OFFLINE   Van594

Van594

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 164 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 27 2006

Posted April 24 2013 - 08:50 AM

Ok, read the spoilers because that stuff doesn't bother me...but if that is true that sounds really stupid and makes no sense to me from the previews and from Trek history. I can tell I'm not going to like this now.



#394 of 438 OFFLINE   RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor



  • 9,609 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted April 24 2013 - 09:33 AM

Ok, read the spoilers because that stuff doesn't bother me...but if that is true that sounds really stupid and makes no sense to me from the previews and from Trek history. I can tell I'm not going to like this now.

These filmmakers have long since dropped any pretense of paying attention to Trek history.  They'll do whatever they feel like, history and continuity be damned.



#395 of 438 OFFLINE   Nelson Au

Nelson Au

    Executive Producer



  • 11,686 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 1999

Posted April 24 2013 - 11:43 AM

Well, as much as I hate to, to be fair to screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, (they are Star Trek fans, well Orci really is the real fan. He's also a TNG fan more so I think.) they both have said there is an enormous backstory to Star Trek and tons of continuity to be mindful of. it also trapped them had they simply done a true origin story in the Prime Universe. So they said they wanted to avoid trapping themselves in stories that might conflict with episodes of TOS. So the alternate Universe where anything can happen because Nero changed history in this new timeline frees them to whatever kind of story they wanted to tell. So yes, to hell with continuity.

 

I agree with another poster above, they simply could have told stories that are stand alone that take place between episodes. 

 

In a way, maybe this is just as well. Leave the original alone. This is a new take on Star Trek. I am not a fan of this new take. But I do like what they did with Pike. That's probably the only thing I find good about the new films. And I'll be interested to see Urban take McCoy further as I liked his McCoy too.

 

I'm staying spoiler free, so I haven't read anything yet! You guys sound like the new plot is pretty out there.

 

By the way, anyone else think Chris Pine just isn't doing a good Kirk? Perhaps this new movie will finally make his portrayal more acceptable for me. I just don't like his voice and it sounds funny to hear him say, "Kirk to Enterprise." His voice just doesn't sound right! But this film is for the youth of today. 

 

I suppose the original Star Trek will look as old fashioned to the youth of today as the 1930's Flash Gordon films did to me. But I still thought they were cool. So hopefully the youth of today can appreciate the Original Star Trek.


Edited by Nelson Au, April 24 2013 - 11:45 AM.


#396 of 438 OFFLINE   RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor



  • 9,609 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted April 24 2013 - 12:08 PM

By the way, anyone else think Chris Pine just isn't doing a good Kirk?

 

I find him thoroughly unlikeable.



#397 of 438 OFFLINE   Nelson Au

Nelson Au

    Executive Producer



  • 11,686 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 1999

Posted April 24 2013 - 12:15 PM

:laugh:



#398 of 438 OFFLINE   Chris Will

Chris Will

    Supporting Actor



  • 793 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 07 2003
  • Real Name:Chris WIlliams
  • LocationMontgomery, AL

Posted April 24 2013 - 01:01 PM

Well, I've read all the spoilers (posted on IMDB and TrekBBS) and I think the movie sounds really good and a lot of fun.  Then again, I'm an odd Trek fan that also likes the 2009 movie.  Some of you hear were never going to like this movie no matter what because it has screwed with our old Trek universe.  I could care less if it follows canon or throws continuity out the window, I take it for what it is; a new spin on a classic TV show.  I guess I just will never understand why people get so worked up about canon and continuity, why does it matter so much?  It's not like these new movies are some how altering the shows we love, they are still there and can be watched anytime.  

 

I just don't get it, folks over at TrekBBS are arguing about the ethnicity of the new actors vs the old ones.  It just doesn't matter IMO.

 

I don't care that Kirk now has blue eyes; I don't care that the new Enterprise is larger and more advanced then 1960s E; I don't care that Vulcan is destroyed in the new movies and I don't care about the countless number of other nitpicks the Trek community are going nuts over.

 

Like this is the first movie to have

Spoiler

 

For now, I'm on board, and based on the spoilers I've read, I think it is going to be a great addition to the Star Trek universe.


Edited by Chris Will, April 24 2013 - 01:11 PM.


#399 of 438 OFFLINE   RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor



  • 9,609 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted April 24 2013 - 01:42 PM

I think it is going to be a great addition to the Star Trek universe.

 

Correction:  it's A Star Trek Universe with lots of differences from THE Star Trek Universe.



#400 of 438 OFFLINE   Nelson Au

Nelson Au

    Executive Producer



  • 11,686 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 1999

Posted April 24 2013 - 01:56 PM

Chris, When I saw Star Trek 2009, I had issues with it. I didn't like a lot of things like how Kirk jumped from Cadet to Captain. Of course in this new universe, he didn;t have to go through what Shatner Kirk did and have postings on other ships and rose up the ranks.

 

I didn't like that Vulcan blew up for sure, or Amanda dying. What bugged me then and now I've much mellowed over is that it seemed like they deliberately killed some favorites from "my" Star Trek.

 

Kirk is presented as a punk. But Nero's interference caused this new Kirk to behave that way. Pike stragithened him out which I liked. He became the father he never had.

 

I accepted the new movie then partly because Nimoy agreed to be in it and understood what the film makers were trying to do. Not undo his Star Trek, but pass the torch to another Generation.

 

I have mellowed a little on this because as you said, it's another take on Star Trek. Its different. I also have to wonder if Roddenberry would approve. I somehow think he would more or less approve because he said himself he hopes another guy takes his spin on it. 

 

I still don't like that grotesque new Enterprise.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users