RiffTrax Forum

General Discussion => Movie Talk => Topic started by: D.B. Barnes on November 23, 2011, 06:12:49 PM

Title: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: D.B. Barnes on November 23, 2011, 06:12:49 PM
‘Star Trek’ 3D Sequel To Open May 17, 2013 (http://www.deadline.com/2011/11/star-trek-3d-sequel-will-debut-may-17-2013/)

Quote
EXCLUSIVE: Sony moved Roland Emmerich’s Singularity from May 17th, 2013, to Nov 1, 2013. So now Paramount is grabbing that primo pre-Memorial Weekend date of May 17, 2013 for its much anticipated writer/director J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek sequel (which is really No. 12 among the Captain Kirk/Mr Spock star fleet movies). No title yet. But this one is being co-written by Abrams with Lost‘s Damon Lindelof, plus Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci. But JJ is going to be making the movie in 3D. The first of Abram’s rebooted franchise opened May 8, 2009 for a $79M weekend and ultimate did $258M in North America and $130M international at the box office. The pic is being produced by all those writers and Bryan Burk, who is JJ’s Bad Robot production partner. It is anticipated that David Ellison’s Skydance will be co-financing the film with Paramount. All key cast members will be returning, like Chris Pine and Zach Quinto and Zoe Saldana.

Paramount took a real risk rebooting what many thought was a tired franchise played out but the studio wound up with another potent franchise. That’s because Abrams’ reboot widened well beyond Star Trek‘s rabid but older fanbase and attracted a new and younger audience. (Paramount marketed the movie as “not your father’s Star Trek”.) And the critical reviews were 96% positive. The goal of the new pic was to finally attract more filmgoers overseas since the franchise had never done $100M international before.

As for the sequel, Abrams had to finish Super 8 so there was no way he could make the June 29, 2012 release date that Paramount initially had carved out for the film. (The studio gave that slot to its other sequel G.I. Joe: Retaliation.) Abrams had been hunkering down with writers Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof to work on the Star Trek script. The studio exercised its option on the cast and they would be ready when Abrams was.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: MrTorso on November 23, 2011, 09:43:54 PM
Was there ever a doubt that they would do a sequel?
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: RVR II on November 23, 2011, 10:35:45 PM
How much more are they gonna beat this dead horse of the original series offshoot.. :deadhorse:
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: RoninFox on November 23, 2011, 11:19:07 PM
How much more are they gonna beat this dead horse of the original series offshoot.. :deadhorse:

Until money stops falling out.

It's going to be awhile.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Nunyerbiz on November 23, 2011, 11:52:25 PM
I quite liked the Abrams Star Trek... I mean it wasn't all that much shittier than anything that came before it... It was no Wrath of Khan in the good sense, but it was certainly not Nemesis in the bad sense. Had generally likable actors doing acceptable work... even if it was under layers of goofy lens flare and a sub par villain.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Relaxing Dragon on November 23, 2011, 11:59:48 PM
Yeah, I thought it was pretty good. Sure, it was my first actual exposure to anything Trek, but still. It was just fighting a terrible script and, as noted, a subpar villain, but the excellent actors and good direction/effects helped it pull ahead. Got hopes for the second one, and am even blaming the bad script from the first one on the writing strike (I should be blaming it on the fact that it was written by total hacks, but hey, no sense getting hung up there).
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: anais.jude on November 24, 2011, 12:35:47 AM
I don't mean any disrespect, but I believe this forum needs to stop talking about any opinions regarding Star Trek 2009...or any "new trek" for that matter. From now on, I propose that all our Star Trek 2009 related discussions inlcude the phrase: "I have feelings for this film of which I shall not discuss here"


So Star Trek 2 Alt Timeline is coming out. I have feelings for this film which I shall not discuss here"

May this thread remain forever peaceful  ;)
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Relaxing Dragon on November 24, 2011, 12:45:41 AM
Is it possible to put a forum filter on it? Like back when Red Dawn was converted to That Movie RVR Wants Riffed (or something like that. I joined a bit late into that particular running gag so a lot of it flew over my head).
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Nunyerbiz on November 24, 2011, 01:01:54 AM
I don't mean any disrespect, but I believe this forum needs to stop talking about any opinions regarding Star Trek 2009...or any "new trek" for that matter. From now on, I propose that all our Star Trek 2009 related discussions inlcude the phrase: "I have feelings for this film of which I shall not discuss here"


So Star Trek 2 Alt Timeline is coming out. I have feelings for this film which I shall not discuss here"

May this thread remain forever peaceful  ;)

I am not purposely avoiding disrespect... altho not actively courting it.

That said,

What the fuck was this quoted response supposed to mean?
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: mrbasehart on November 24, 2011, 03:10:44 AM
How much more are they gonna beat this dead horse of the original series offshoot.. :deadhorse:

I KNEW Doctor Who would appear for this thread!
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: RVR II on November 24, 2011, 03:53:00 AM
Yeah, my bad ;D
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: ScottotD on November 24, 2011, 05:09:05 AM
I don't mean any disrespect, but I believe this forum needs to stop talking about any opinions regarding Star Trek 2009...or any "new trek" for that matter. From now on, I propose that all our Star Trek 2009 related discussions inlcude the phrase: "I have feelings for this film of which I shall not discuss here"

Both those loonies have left haven't they?
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: anais.jude on November 24, 2011, 12:29:10 PM
I don't mean any disrespect, but I believe this forum needs to stop talking about any opinions regarding Star Trek 2009...or any "new trek" for that matter. From now on, I propose that all our Star Trek 2009 related discussions inlcude the phrase: "I have feelings for this film of which I shall not discuss here"

Both those loonies have left haven't they?

I don't know. I am just worn out and tired of any fighting. I guess I was trying to make a satirical observation that since we are going to re-live another star trek movie can we please be peaceful with our opinions?

please
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: RVR II on November 24, 2011, 12:30:02 PM
I don't mean any disrespect, but I believe this forum needs to stop talking about any opinions regarding Star Trek 2009...or any "new trek" for that matter. From now on, I propose that all our Star Trek 2009 related discussions inlcude the phrase: "I have feelings for this film of which I shall not discuss here"

Both those loonies have left haven't they?

I don't know. I am just worn out and tired of any fighting. I guess I was trying to make a satirical observation that since we are going to re-live another star trek movie can we please be peaceful with our opinions?

please
No Way! ;D

I won't be seein this one either unless there's a RiffTrax with it. Nuff said 8)
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: RoninFox on November 24, 2011, 12:56:07 PM
I'll see it in theatres, but I most likely won't spring for 3D.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: ScottotD on November 25, 2011, 05:14:38 AM
I will, loved the first one. Pop corn and fun ahoy!
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: daltysmilth on November 27, 2011, 09:00:05 PM
I'll see it in theatres, but I most likely won't spring for 3D.

I'll see it in theatres and in 3D, but I won't get popcorn!  Okay, someone else add to this!
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on November 27, 2011, 10:30:31 PM
I'll see it in theatres, but I most likely won't spring for 3D.
I'll see it in theatres and in 3D, but I won't get popcorn!  Okay, someone else add to this!
As long as they stop with this "First look" shit by then. I hate that so much. But, I loved Star Trek(2009), I don't care if it was less like Trek and more like Star Wars, it was more like the original Star Wars movies, and that's alright with me.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: RoninFox on November 27, 2011, 11:45:14 PM
Admittedly the main reason I don't want to spring for 3D that my wife won't want to see it that way (3D gives her headaches, and action movies on a big screen can give her motion sickness without adding 3D glasses induced vertigo to it sometimes.)  The last Star Trek movie came out before I met her, but we both loved it, and I really want to see this one with her.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on November 28, 2011, 12:16:47 PM
I just hope they have a more compelling villian. 
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on November 28, 2011, 12:52:57 PM
I just hope they have a more compelling villian.  
Benicio Del Toro.... as Khan? Can you imagine him playing anyone else?
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on November 28, 2011, 12:56:48 PM
I would rather they make up a new villian actually. 
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on November 28, 2011, 01:06:03 PM
I would rather they make up a new villian actually. 
When it comes to Star Trek, writers are better off sticking with what's familiar. What's most important is the addition of other elements.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on November 28, 2011, 01:09:47 PM
Nah Some new aspect of the star trek world would be more fun to see than a take on something already deeply familiar. 
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on November 28, 2011, 01:16:10 PM
Nah Some new aspect of the star trek world would be more fun to see than a take on something already deeply familiar. 
Well, we'll see what they do. I'm sure it's going to kick ass... because this will be an even-numbered trek film, and there's never been a Trek film that was even numbered that SUCKED before...........  ;D
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: daltysmilth on November 28, 2011, 01:44:48 PM
Well, there's never been an even-numbered Star Trek featuring Kirk and the crew that sucked before.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on November 28, 2011, 01:47:07 PM
Technically there has never been an even numbered film with shatner and nimoy that has sucked before. 
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on November 28, 2011, 02:01:06 PM
Technically there has never been an even numbered film with shatner and nimoy that has sucked before.  
Very true. and this isn't related to the dubious "Odd-numbered curse". However, as SF debris pointed out, it's always a very bad sign whenever a character or characters sing in a Star Trek movie. That is except for of course The Motion Picture, because the singing would distract from the boredom.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: doggans on November 28, 2011, 03:09:38 PM
Technically there has never been an even numbered film with shatner and nimoy that has sucked before. 

Can I play? Um, there's never been a feature-length Star Trek musical with David Hasselhoff and the supporting cast of "Becker" that's sucked before!
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: RVR II on November 28, 2011, 05:09:31 PM
Technically there has never been an even numbered film with shatner and nimoy that has sucked before. 

Can I play? Um, there's never been a feature-length Star Trek musical with David Hasselhoff and the supporting cast of "Becker" that's sucked before!
The Hoff would make a perfect Cardassian :P
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on November 28, 2011, 05:51:23 PM
The Hoff would make a perfect Cardassian :P
No, Kim Kardassian would make a perfect Kardashian.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: anais.jude on November 28, 2011, 06:58:02 PM
The Hoff would make a perfect Cardassian :P
No, Kim Kardassian would make a perfect Kardashian.

She would make the perfect horse
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on November 28, 2011, 07:07:36 PM
As in fun to take on long rides?  or are you referring more to putting a bridle on her?
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: RVR II on November 28, 2011, 09:32:49 PM
As in fun to take on long rides?  or are you referring more to putting a bridle on her?
If a bridle will shut her up, I'd take a long ride on her :rimshot:
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: anais.jude on November 30, 2011, 03:18:59 PM
Ugh, anyone who is willing to put their member into Kim Kardasian has serious issues.

Unless by "member" you mean knife and by "into her" you mean anyplace where she would die of the wound.

Ok, maybe that was harsh, but I am pretty positive the world would be a better place without her
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: RVR II on November 30, 2011, 03:28:41 PM
Ugh, anyone who is willing to put their member into Kim Kardasian has serious issues.

Unless by "member" you mean knife and by "into her" you mean anyplace where she would die of the wound.

Ok, maybe that was harsh, but I am pretty positive the world would be a better place without her
:D :D
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on November 30, 2011, 03:57:52 PM
can't wait for this.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: mrbasehart on November 30, 2011, 04:13:56 PM
Ugh, anyone who is willing to put their member into Kim Kardasian has serious issues.

Unless by "member" you mean knife and by "into her" you mean anyplace where she would die of the wound.

Ok, maybe that was harsh, but I am pretty positive the world would be a better place without her

She's the female equivalent of a bad boy.  You know she's bad for you, and you feel guilty for even liking her, but at some point, you have to acknowledge there's a small part of you that really just wants her, preferably not talking, but wants her nevertheless.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: RoninFox on November 30, 2011, 05:46:05 PM
Ugh, anyone who is willing to put their member into Kim Kardasian has serious issues.

Unless by "member" you mean knife and by "into her" you mean anyplace where she would die of the wound.

Ok, maybe that was harsh, but I am pretty positive the world would be a better place without her

She's the female equivalent of a bad boy.  You know she's bad for you, and you feel guilty for even liking her, but at some point, you have to acknowledge there's a small part of you that really just wants her, preferably not talking, but wants her nevertheless.

I acknowledge no such thing. Her alleged attractiveness is so generic hollow and lifeless that it does nothing but repulse me. She and her whole family really need to quietly disappear.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: anais.jude on November 30, 2011, 05:48:31 PM
Ugh, anyone who is willing to put their member into Kim Kardasian has serious issues.

Unless by "member" you mean knife and by "into her" you mean anyplace where she would die of the wound.

Ok, maybe that was harsh, but I am pretty positive the world would be a better place without her

She's the female equivalent of a bad boy.  You know she's bad for you, and you feel guilty for even liking her, but at some point, you have to acknowledge there's a small part of you that really just wants her, preferably not talking, but wants her nevertheless.

I acknowledge no such thing. Her alleged attractiveness is so generic hollow and lifeless that it does nothing but repulse me. She and her whole family really need to quietly disappear.

Thank You, Abelard...I mean Ronin
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: mrbasehart on November 30, 2011, 05:54:26 PM
Ugh, anyone who is willing to put their member into Kim Kardasian has serious issues.

Unless by "member" you mean knife and by "into her" you mean anyplace where she would die of the wound.

Ok, maybe that was harsh, but I am pretty positive the world would be a better place without her

She's the female equivalent of a bad boy.  You know she's bad for you, and you feel guilty for even liking her, but at some point, you have to acknowledge there's a small part of you that really just wants her, preferably not talking, but wants her nevertheless.

I acknowledge no such thing. Her alleged attractiveness is so generic hollow and lifeless that it does nothing but repulse me. She and her whole family really need to quietly disappear.

I guess you're a better man than I then, Ronin.  Though, I guess I've never actually heard her speak ever, so I can't make a judgement call on her personality at all.  Ehn, doesn't matter.  I'll admire her tremendous bottom anyway.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: anais.jude on November 30, 2011, 06:10:50 PM
Ugh, anyone who is willing to put their member into Kim Kardasian has serious issues.

Unless by "member" you mean knife and by "into her" you mean anyplace where she would die of the wound.

Ok, maybe that was harsh, but I am pretty positive the world would be a better place without her

She's the female equivalent of a bad boy.  You know she's bad for you, and you feel guilty for even liking her, but at some point, you have to acknowledge there's a small part of you that really just wants her, preferably not talking, but wants her nevertheless.

I acknowledge no such thing. Her alleged attractiveness is so generic hollow and lifeless that it does nothing but repulse me. She and her whole family really need to quietly disappear.

I guess you're a better man than I then, Ronin.  Though, I guess I've never actually heard her speak ever, so I can't make a judgement call on her personality at all.  Ehn, doesn't matter.  I'll admire her tremendous bottom anyway.


Ya know non waste of space women have a nice bottom
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: ScottotD on November 30, 2011, 06:50:50 PM
Ugh, anyone who is willing to put their member into Kim Kardasian has serious issues.

Unless by "member" you mean knife and by "into her" you mean anyplace where she would die of the wound.

Ok, maybe that was harsh, but I am pretty positive the world would be a better place without her

She's the female equivalent of a bad boy.  You know she's bad for you, and you feel guilty for even liking her, but at some point, you have to acknowledge there's a small part of you that really just wants her, preferably not talking, but wants her nevertheless.

I acknowledge no such thing. Her alleged attractiveness is so generic hollow and lifeless that it does nothing but repulse me. She and her whole family really need to quietly disappear.

I guess you're a better man than I then, Ronin.  Though, I guess I've never actually heard her speak ever, so I can't make a judgement call on her personality at all.  Ehn, doesn't matter.  I'll admire her tremendous bottom anyway.

Yeah, I wouldn't be proud of it but I still would given the chance
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on November 30, 2011, 06:55:15 PM
I still think She is probably smarter than her persona shows. 
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on November 30, 2011, 09:58:23 PM
I still think She is probably smarter than her persona shows. 
Are we talking about Cardassian Women or Kardashian women? heh heh. Get it? I'm totally running a joke into the ground, GET IT?! Haw haw haw haw!
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Compound on December 05, 2011, 10:06:25 AM
So, anyway...

Guess who's in the new movie? Benecio del Toro as the villain? Well, yeah. that's old news. Peter Weller has joined the cast. Yep. Star Trek now has Dr. Banzai in it. Woot.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on December 05, 2011, 11:24:03 PM
That is pretty damn awesome. The only way this movie could possibly get better is if A) It has an epic story, and B) The Satellite of love has a cameo.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: anais.jude on December 06, 2011, 08:24:01 AM
That is pretty damn awesome. The only way this movie could possibly get better is if A) It has an epic story, and B) The Satellite of love has a cameo.
bunnies, kittens, and Snape riding a unicorn had a cameo

 :D
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on December 06, 2011, 09:03:36 AM
That is pretty damn awesome. The only way this movie could possibly get better is if A) It has an epic story, and B) The Satellite of love has a cameo.
bunnies, kittens, and Snape riding a unicorn had a cameo
:D
Oh you. :P
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: RVR II on December 06, 2011, 09:22:44 AM
That is pretty damn awesome. The only way this movie could possibly get better is if A) It has an epic story, and B) The Satellite of love has a cameo.
bunnies, kittens, and Snape riding a unicorn had a cameo
:D
Oh you. :P
Snape Enterprise with Capt. bunny and his kitten bridge crew ;D
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: D.B. Barnes on December 06, 2011, 09:33:57 AM
I'm about to cloud up and rain all over this parade.

Benicio Del Toro Won’t Make Star Trek Sequel  (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/12/benicio-del-toro-star-trek-sequel-khan.html)

Quote
The sequel to the successful reboot of Star Trek has been a long-in-development priority for Paramount and director J.J. Abrams, and the Enterprise is currently scheduled to lift off again this January, when shooting on the untitled next installment will begin. Sadly, there's one high-profile star whom Abrams didn't manage to beam up: Benicio Del Toro, who entered into talks last month to play the sequel's new villain. Insiders tell Vulture that the deal actually went asunder last Wednesday after parties couldn't come to terms over monetary issues.

Abrams will now have to move quickly to fill the role, but which villain from Star Trek lore has he made the focal point of the new film? When Del Toro's name was first linked to the project, speculation ran rampant that he might play Khan, immortalized once before on the big screen by Ricardo Montalban in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. On Friday, the site Latino Review claimed to have confirmed that choice of villain, though Abrams promptly replied to Hitfix that the report was "not true." Still, the famously secretive director was probably trying to keep the cat in the interstellar bag for a little while longer, as Vulture hears from a highly placed source that Khan is indeed the film's baddie. Perhaps Abrams was taking his cues from Man of Steel director Zack Snyder, who strongly denied to the press last year that General Zod would be the villain in his Superman reboot ... then cast Michael Shannon as Zod a few months later.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: RVR II on December 06, 2011, 09:36:07 AM
I'm about to cloud up and rain all over this parade.

Benicio Del Toro Won’t Make Star Trek Sequel  (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/12/benicio-del-toro-star-trek-sequel-khan.html)

Quote
The sequel to the successful reboot of Star Trek has been a long-in-development priority for Paramount and director J.J. Abrams, and the Enterprise is currently scheduled to lift off again this January, when shooting on the untitled next installment will begin. Sadly, there's one high-profile star whom Abrams didn't manage to beam up: Benicio Del Toro, who entered into talks last month to play the sequel's new villain. Insiders tell Vulture that the deal actually went asunder last Wednesday after parties couldn't come to terms over monetary issues.

Abrams will now have to move quickly to fill the role, but which villain from Star Trek lore has he made the focal point of the new film? When Del Toro's name was first linked to the project, speculation ran rampant that he might play Khan, immortalized once before on the big screen by Ricardo Montalban in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. On Friday, the site Latino Review claimed to have confirmed that choice of villain, though Abrams promptly replied to Hitfix that the report was "not true." Still, the famously secretive director was probably trying to keep the cat in the interstellar bag for a little while longer, as Vulture hears from a highly placed source that Khan is indeed the film's baddie. Perhaps Abrams was taking his cues from Man of Steel director Zack Snyder, who strongly denied to the press last year that General Zod would be the villain in his Superman reboot ... then cast Michael Shannon as Zod a few months later.
Just go with John De Lancie as "Q" 8)
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on December 06, 2011, 09:50:21 AM
Just go with John De Lancie as "Q" 8)
I don't know how you could do a Star Trek movie with Q as the main antagonist.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: RVR II on December 06, 2011, 09:58:02 AM
Just go with John De Lancie as "Q" 8)
I don't know how you could do a Star Trek movie with Q as the main antagonist.
That's all he ever did was antagonize so it'd be a perfect fit ;D
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Relaxing Dragon on December 06, 2011, 10:34:03 AM
Sorry, the ponies took Q (actor and personality):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Going to the conclusion Badass Digest has jumped to (http://badassdigest.com/2011/12/06/benicio-wont-be-khan-after-all/), Khan will be the villain for the sequel. Haven't any stance on that, seeing as I still haven't gotten around to watching Wrath of Khan (it's on my Netflix queue, I'll get to it).
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: daltysmilth on December 06, 2011, 11:44:09 AM
The difference between that character and Q seems to be that the main reason Q interacted with any "lesser beings" like Picard was merely to satisfy his sick sense of humor more than any personal malice, whereas this character does seem to have a sense of malice against the ponies.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on December 06, 2011, 11:51:58 AM
q as a villian would be awesome on so many levels. maybe follow the the Next Generation - Q Continuum: novel storyline only with kirk.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: RVR II on December 06, 2011, 11:54:00 AM
q as a villian would be awesome on so many levels. maybe follow the the Next Generation - Q Continuum: novel storyline only with kirk.
See, now That would make me go see this in a theater ;D

Only problem: Age has taken it's toll on him based on recent pics :o
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Bob on December 06, 2011, 01:53:19 PM
Just put one of the Star Wars prequels' villians in it and blow the mind of every fan of both series.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Tripe on December 06, 2011, 01:55:31 PM
Only problem: Age has taken it's toll on him based on recent pics :o

He looked okay in Torchwood. I mean he's older but he doesn't look bad.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Bob on December 06, 2011, 03:22:50 PM
Only problem: Age has taken it's toll on him based on recent pics :o

He looked okay in Torchwood. I mean he's older but he doesn't look bad.

Hey looked pretty good in Breaking Bad too.   I mean, he was never a pretty boy
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: RVR II on December 06, 2011, 03:46:38 PM
Only problem: Age has taken it's toll on him based on recent pics :o

He looked okay in Torchwood. I mean he's older but he doesn't look bad.

Hey looked pretty good in Breaking Bad too.   I mean, he was never a pretty boy
I guess watching a good bit of Star Trek TNG lately and then googleing some recent pics kinda shocked me a bit :-\
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: D.B. Barnes on December 06, 2011, 03:51:00 PM
Only problem: Age has taken it's toll on him based on recent pics :o

He looked okay in Torchwood. I mean he's older but he doesn't look bad.

Hey looked pretty good in Breaking Bad too.   I mean, he was never a pretty boy

HOLY SHIT!!! He was Jane's father?!? I didn't even recognize him!
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: mrbasehart on December 06, 2011, 04:57:59 PM
He's still got that really cool voice though.  If anything, with age, it's gotten better.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: daltysmilth on December 06, 2011, 05:41:59 PM
Only problem: Age has taken it's toll on him based on recent pics :o

He looked okay in Torchwood. I mean he's older but he doesn't look bad.

Hey looked pretty good in Breaking Bad too.   I mean, he was never a pretty boy

Speak for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd4IUnD0Sbc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd4IUnD0Sbc)
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: RVR II on December 06, 2011, 05:50:37 PM
Only problem: Age has taken it's toll on him based on recent pics :o

He looked okay in Torchwood. I mean he's older but he doesn't look bad.

Hey looked pretty good in Breaking Bad too.   I mean, he was never a pretty boy

Speak for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/v/Fd4IUnD0Sbc
:D :D :D
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Rainbow Dash on December 06, 2011, 08:32:36 PM

Only problem: Age has taken it's toll on him based on recent pics :o

He looked a bit horse faced in his last TV appearance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEF3Cl_DcYg
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on December 07, 2011, 09:07:05 PM

Only problem: Age has taken it's toll on him based on recent pics :o

He looked a bit horse faced in his last TV appearance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEF3Cl_DcYg
omg, he became an animated character! Damn you! You Blew it up! Damn you! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!!!!
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: D.B. Barnes on December 21, 2011, 09:08:00 AM
J.J. Abrams Teases 'Amazing' 'Star Trek' Sequel (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1676322/jj-abrams-star-trek.jhtml)

Quote
But director wouldn't give up too many details about the film due May 2013.

When it comes to getting the gory details about the "Star Trek" sequel, J.J. Abrams is a master of a few words and not revealing anything too juicy. Nevertheless, when MTV News encountered the writer/director/producer at the premiere of "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" recently, we came armed with questions, the first of which was when we'll find out whether Khan will be in the picture.

"It's a little early to be talking about 'Star Trek,' but I will say that they wrote — the three writers, Damon [Lindelof], Bob [Orci] and Alex [Kurtzman] — they wrote the most amazing script, and I'm thrilled to get a chance to direct it," he said. "It's totally mine to screw up, so if you don't like it, it's completely on me. Our sets are almost done, so we're going to go back and start shooting next month."

Abrams, being the perfectionist that he is, went on to say that he hopes to improve upon a few things in the first film, but didn't mention what those fixes or improvements may be.

"I'm sure, like many people, you see what you do and you go, 'I really could have done that one better, I should have done that, that was a mistake, more of this, less of that.' You always do that," he said. "I'm hoping that as we do the next one, all the mistakes that I've made that I've hopefully learned from, I can bring to this one and hope make it better."

A master of no information, Abrams is. We did manage to get him to talk about whether "Trek 2" will be shot in 3-D and/or IMAX, however.

"We're shooting on film, 2-D, and then we'll do a good high-end conversion like the 'Harry Potter' movie and all that. Luckily, with our release date now we have the months needed to do it right because if you rush it, it never looks good.

"We were talking about [shooting in IMAX] and I would love to do it. IMAX is my favorite format; I'm a huge fan," he added.

And finally, because we decided to go for the goods while we had him, we asked Abrams for an update on the long-discussed "Cloverfield" sequel. "I wish I could give you an update," he said. "We would love to do it if there was an idea that is worth your time. We're playing with some ideas, but we haven't found the one that you go, 'That's the reason to do it.' "

3-D LENS FLARE!!!
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: mrbasehart on December 21, 2011, 11:33:05 AM
Hmm.  I don't really have much of an opinion either way on 3d at the moment, but if you're going to show it in 3d, I'd rather you shot it in 3d, rather than have it be converted.  Have the 3d mean something other than just be a gimmick.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: RVR II on December 21, 2011, 11:40:15 AM
Hmm.  I don't really have much of an opinion either way on 3d at the moment, but if you're going to show it in 3d, I'd rather you shot it in 3d, rather than have it be converted.  Have the 3d mean something other than just be a gimmick.
3D gives me a headache. That is my take on it :(
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on December 21, 2011, 01:20:32 PM
Hmm.  I don't really have much of an opinion either way on 3d at the moment, but if you're going to show it in 3d, I'd rather you shot it in 3d, rather than have it be converted.  Have the 3d mean something other than just be a gimmick.
3D gives me a headache. That is my take on it :(
I could take it or leave it, honestly. I care more about story quality than flashy gimmicks.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Johnny Unusual on December 22, 2011, 08:47:52 AM
Hmm.  I don't really have much of an opinion either way on 3d at the moment, but if you're going to show it in 3d, I'd rather you shot it in 3d, rather than have it be converted.  Have the 3d mean something other than just be a gimmick.
3D gives me a headache. That is my take on it :(
I could take it or leave it, honestly. I care more about story quality than flashy gimmicks.

To me, what made the last movie good was the characters (especially Bones).  The story (or at least the main dilemma) was pretty silly.  Time travelling space miners.  I'm sure it's a fun idea (when it was called Red Dwarf) but not a very compelling villain.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: mrbasehart on December 22, 2011, 09:01:24 AM
They need a villain who can repeatedly kick the shit out of Kirk and the Enterprise, with a decent motive, only for things to come good at the end. 

If all else fails: Space tits.  In 3d.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: a pretty girl is like on December 22, 2011, 01:02:53 PM
They need a villain who can repeatedly kick the shit out of Kirk and the Enterprise, with a decent motive, only for things to come good at the end. 


(http://files.sharenator.com/darth_vader_Darth_Vader-s500x636-136995-580.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: D.B. Barnes on December 22, 2011, 01:06:19 PM
They need a villain who can repeatedly kick the shit out of Kirk and the Enterprise, with a decent motive, only for things to come good at the end. 


(http://files.sharenator.com/darth_vader_Darth_Vader-s500x636-136995-580.jpg)

Sorry, Christensen and Lucas have sucked so much of the badass out of this guy, I'll just never be able to look at him the same way I used to.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: a pretty girl is like on December 22, 2011, 01:13:38 PM
They need a villain who can repeatedly kick the shit out of Kirk and the Enterprise, with a decent motive, only for things to come good at the end. 


(http://files.sharenator.com/darth_vader_Darth_Vader-s500x636-136995-580.jpg)

Sorry, Christensen and Lucas have sucked so much of the badass out of this guy, I'll just never be able to look at him the same way I used to.

Noooooooooooooooo!  Don't say that.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on December 22, 2011, 02:40:36 PM
Sorry, Christensen and Lucas have sucked so much of the badass out of this guy, I'll just never be able to look at him the same way I used to.
I live in my own little world where the prequels don't exist. I personally consider them to be completely apocryphal. I see the prequels much the same way Atheists see creationism. I cannot begin to describe the world of irony contained in that statement.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: mrbasehart on December 22, 2011, 03:45:13 PM
Vader never had a good motive, other than "the Emperor told me to."  And frankly, from the neck down, he looks a little silly.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: a pretty girl is like on December 22, 2011, 05:09:34 PM
Vader never had a good motive, other than "the Emperor told me to."  And frankly, from the neck down, he looks a little silly.

Basehart, you take everything good and you....you...rip my heart out.  :'(
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Sideswipe on December 22, 2011, 05:26:02 PM
Tarkin told him what to do.  He was never more than a glorified thug.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on December 22, 2011, 05:28:00 PM
yea that was part of his character that he could have become this ultimate sith lord, being a living avatar of the force, but his transition to the dark side broke him. thats also why he never seemed to try and fulfill the rule of two and kill his master, hence the emperor  trying to turn Luke.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on December 22, 2011, 11:20:08 PM
Vader never had a good motive, other than "the Emperor told me to." 
That's the fault of the prequels.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Sideswipe on December 22, 2011, 11:33:15 PM
No it wasn't.  What about in RoTJ where Vader says:  "I must obey my master."
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on December 23, 2011, 03:48:15 AM
and a new hope when Tarkin orders him to stop choking one of the officers. dont blame everything on the prequels.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: James of LinHood on December 23, 2011, 05:16:49 AM
No it wasn't.  What about in RoTJ where Vader says:  "I must obey my master."

Although, I have to say that, "I must obey my master" is much better than what the prequels basically added to that sentence.  Which is, "I must obey my master because he promised to help me keep my wife from dying...but she died anyway.  So, I'm not sure why I'm still sticking around with this guy."  I would have rather gone on not knowing that last bit.  Sometimes, ignorance is bliss.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: RVR II on December 23, 2011, 05:28:04 AM
No it wasn't.  What about in RoTJ where Vader says:  "I must obey my master."
So when was it that you had to obey Optimus Prime? :o
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: mrbasehart on December 23, 2011, 06:34:03 AM
No it wasn't.  What about in RoTJ where Vader says:  "I must obey my master."

Although, I have to say that, "I must obey my master" is much better than what the prequels basically added to that sentence.  Which is, "I must obey my master because he promised to help me keep my wife from dying...but she died anyway. 

Not forgetting the, "I almost killed her myself" bit. 
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: D.B. Barnes on December 23, 2011, 06:39:44 AM
I don't give a shit who he was taking orders from. It didn't make him any less of a BAMF in the OT. Lucas and the whiny, ineffectual little douche took one of the most intimidating characters in the history of film and neutered him beyond recognition.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: daltysmilth on December 23, 2011, 09:00:20 AM
Must every thread degenerate into a discussion of why the prequels sucked?
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: D.B. Barnes on December 23, 2011, 09:03:57 AM
Must every thread degenerate into a discussion of why the prequels sucked?

You've never heard of Porkin's Law?
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: a pretty girl is like on December 23, 2011, 01:07:35 PM
My work here is done!  Merry Christmas!  :highfive:
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on December 23, 2011, 03:17:01 PM
so how about that STAR TREK movie huh?
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Sideswipe on December 23, 2011, 03:25:20 PM
This is a Star Wars thread, who give a shi....Wait, what?
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: RVR II on December 23, 2011, 03:39:23 PM
so how about that STAR TREK movie huh?
1-10 will still be better than this turd ;D
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: D.B. Barnes on December 23, 2011, 03:46:15 PM
LENS FLARE
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on December 23, 2011, 04:00:51 PM
(http://i777.photobucket.com/albums/yy54/theenglishmajor/star-trek-crew-and-lens-flares.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Sideswipe on December 23, 2011, 04:04:30 PM
STAR TREK 2013.......NOW WITH MORE LENSE FLARES!!
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on December 23, 2011, 04:22:32 PM
STAR TREK 2013.......NOW WITH MORE LENSE FLARES!!
Yeah I know it's almost as bad as movies with robots pissing and robot nutsacks... HUH SIDESWIPE?

I think my point is dear friends, if the words "lens flare" didn't exist, would you even care?
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: D.B. Barnes on December 23, 2011, 04:33:56 PM
STAR TREK 2013.......NOW WITH MORE LENSE FLARES!!
I think my point is dear friends, if the words "lens flare" didn't exist, would you even care?

Yeah. We'd just have to come up with our own name for it, like, oh I don't know...'get that fucking shit outta my eyes!'
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Sideswipe on December 23, 2011, 04:40:33 PM
STAR TREK 2013.......NOW WITH MORE LENSE FLARES!!
Yeah I know it's almost as bad as movies with robots pissing and robot nutsacks... HUH SIDESWIPE?

I think my point is dear friends, if the words "lens flare" didn't exist, would you even care?

Yes, as the sole person responsible for the entire production of all three Transfomer movies, I am ashamed of myself.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on December 23, 2011, 05:02:10 PM
that was you? ive been sending my death threats to the wrong people then.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Darth Geek on December 23, 2011, 05:02:39 PM
STAR TREK 2013.......NOW WITH MORE LENSE FLARES!!
Yeah I know it's almost as bad as movies with robots pissing and robot nutsacks... HUH SIDESWIPE?

I think my point is dear friends, if the words "lens flare" didn't exist, would you even care?

Yes, as the sole person responsible for the entire production of all three Transfomer movies, I am ashamed of myself.
That was YOU?! Get him!!!!
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on December 23, 2011, 05:09:45 PM
Yes, as the sole person responsible for the entire production of all three Transfomer movies, I am ashamed of myself.
:o .... I never said you were the sole person responsible for their entire production. Why does everybody keep making assumptions about my posts? Huh, oh well. :D
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: ScottotD on December 23, 2011, 08:44:36 PM
This is why we can't have nice things
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Sideswipe on December 23, 2011, 08:47:36 PM
speak for yourself.  I've got lots of nice things.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: doggans on December 23, 2011, 09:05:04 PM
My things are nicer than yours. So THERE.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: turbospaz3000 on December 23, 2011, 10:13:45 PM
my things can beat the shit out of your things!
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: RVR II on December 23, 2011, 10:49:40 PM
My things ARE The Shit! 8)
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: D.B. Barnes on December 23, 2011, 10:57:12 PM
Cherish ALL the things!!!
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Nunyerbiz on December 23, 2011, 11:37:26 PM
My things were an honor student at Hayden Christensen Middle School...

wait.. what were we talking about again?

Oh yea... that Star Wars was a house of cards from day one that only became weaker with each additional film... Well, except for maybe Empire... I suppose that was good... a fucking muppet was turned into a convincing dramatic character for cryin out loud.... but really... the whole Star Wars thing is really only 200 or so minutes of good movies surrounded by incalculable amounts of horseshit. 

As far as Trek... that shit had bottomed out. The Next Generation / DS9 / Voyager / lameasswhateverelse was a cul de sac... only option was a reboot with Kirk and Spock and Bones while those characters still had some cache... and I thought it generally worked... in spite of annoying lens flare and the lame villain.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on December 24, 2011, 03:33:27 AM
My things were an honor student at Hayden Christensen Middle School...

wait.. what were we talking about again?

Oh yea... that Star Wars was a house of cards from day one that only became weaker with each additional film... Well, except for maybe Empire... I suppose that was good... a fucking muppet was turned into a convincing dramatic character for cryin out loud.... but really... the whole Star Wars thing is really only 200 or so minutes of good movies surrounded by incalculable amounts of horseshit. 

As far as Trek... that shit had bottomed out. The Next Generation / DS9 / Voyager / lameasswhateverelse was a cul de sac... only option was a reboot with Kirk and Spock and Bones while those characters still had some cache... and I thought it generally worked... in spite of annoying lens flare and the lame villain.
i disagree.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Sideswipe on December 24, 2011, 07:13:36 AM
I agree with your disagreement.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: RVR II on December 24, 2011, 12:54:33 PM
I agree with your disagreement.
CIRCLE GETS THE SQUARE!! :o
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on December 24, 2011, 01:35:38 PM
I agree with your disagreement.
You should see me edam cheese.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: D.B. Barnes on January 05, 2012, 10:22:37 AM
'Star Trek' Sequel Nabs 'War Horse' Actor Benedict Cumberbatch (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-trek-benedict-cumberbatch-war-horse-278143)

Quote
The star of the BBC’s “Sherlock” will likely play the main villain in J.J. Abrams' film for Paramount.

Benedict Cumberbatch, who can currently be seen in theaters in Steven Spielberg’s War Horse, has nabbed a major role in J.J. Abrams’ upcoming Star Trek sequel for Paramount.

Although sources would not comment on the character and Abrams keeping story details close to the vest, it is believed that Cumberbatch will play the movie’s villain.

The cast of the 2009 Trek movie (including Chris Pine, Zoe Saldana and Zachary Quinto) is returning for the sequel, which will be shot in 3D and released by Paramount. The script is written by Abrams, Damon Lindelof, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci.

Cumberbatch is clearly having a moment. The actor, who stars as Sherlock Holmes in BBC’s Sherlock, is also on screens with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and is voicing the characters of Smaug the dragon and the Nercomancer in Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit.

Oh hell yeah. I'll take the Batch over Benicio any day. This could be awesome.

BATCH!!!
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on January 05, 2012, 10:26:10 AM
'Star Trek' Sequel Nabs 'War Horse' Actor Benedict Cumberbatch (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-trek-benedict-cumberbatch-war-horse-278143)

Quote
The star of the BBC’s “Sherlock” will likely play the main villain in J.J. Abrams' film for Paramount.

Benedict Cumberbatch, who can currently be seen in theaters in Steven Spielberg’s War Horse, has nabbed a major role in J.J. Abrams’ upcoming Star Trek sequel for Paramount.

Although sources would not comment on the character and Abrams keeping story details close to the vest, it is believed that Cumberbatch will play the movie’s villain.

The cast of the 2009 Trek movie (including Chris Pine, Zoe Saldana and Zachary Quinto) is returning for the sequel, which will be shot in 3D and released by Paramount. The script is written by Abrams, Damon Lindelof, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci.

Cumberbatch is clearly having a moment. The actor, who stars as Sherlock Holmes in BBC’s Sherlock, is also on screens with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and is voicing the characters of Smaug the dragon and the Nercomancer in Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit.

not the nercomancer!
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on January 05, 2012, 10:41:19 AM
'Star Trek' Sequel Nabs 'War Horse' Actor Benedict Cumberbatch (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-trek-benedict-cumberbatch-war-horse-278143)

Quote
The star of the BBC’s “Sherlock” will likely play the main villain in J.J. Abrams' film for Paramount.

Benedict Cumberbatch, who can currently be seen in theaters in Steven Spielberg’s War Horse, has nabbed a major role in J.J. Abrams’ upcoming Star Trek sequel for Paramount.

Although sources would not comment on the character and Abrams keeping story details close to the vest, it is believed that Cumberbatch will play the movie’s villain.

The cast of the 2009 Trek movie (including Chris Pine, Zoe Saldana and Zachary Quinto) is returning for the sequel, which will be shot in 3D and released by Paramount. The script is written by Abrams, Damon Lindelof, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci.

Cumberbatch is clearly having a moment. The actor, who stars as Sherlock Holmes in BBC’s Sherlock, is also on screens with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and is voicing the characters of Smaug the dragon and the Nercomancer in Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit.

Oh hell yeah. I'll take the Batch over Benicio any day. This could be awesome.

BATCH!!!

This is great news!  He was amazing in Sherlock and it is great to see him getting more mainstream work.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on January 05, 2012, 12:06:05 PM
This is great news!  He was amazing in Sherlock and it is great to see him getting more mainstream work.
I quite agree. The BBC Sherlock Holmes is FAR more credible and more interesting to watch than the shitty-ass Robert Downey the fabric softener bear movies.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: anais.jude on January 05, 2012, 12:57:03 PM
This is great news!  He was amazing in Sherlock and it is great to see him getting more mainstream work.
I quite agree. The BBC Sherlock Holmes is FAR more credible and more interesting to watch than the shitty-ass Robert Downey the fabric softener bear movies.

Fabric softener bear?
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on January 05, 2012, 01:37:57 PM
This is great news!  He was amazing in Sherlock and it is great to see him getting more mainstream work.
I quite agree. The BBC Sherlock Holmes is FAR more credible and more interesting to watch than the shitty-ass Robert Downey the fabric softener bear movies.
Fabric softener bear?
Don't remember Downy the...? oh wait, that was snuggles. My bad.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on January 05, 2012, 03:03:47 PM
This is great news!  He was amazing in Sherlock and it is great to see him getting more mainstream work.
I quite agree. The BBC Sherlock Holmes is FAR more credible and more interesting to watch than the shitty-ass Robert Downey the fabric softener bear movies.
Fabric softener bear?
Don't remember Downy the...? oh wait, that was snuggles. My bad.
what are your problems with the american sherlock holmes movies?
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on January 05, 2012, 03:12:46 PM
This is great news!  He was amazing in Sherlock and it is great to see him getting more mainstream work.
I quite agree. The BBC Sherlock Holmes is FAR more credible and more interesting to watch than the shitty-ass Robert Downey the fabric softener bear movies.
Fabric softener bear?
Don't remember Downy the...? oh wait, that was snuggles. My bad.
what are your problems with the american sherlock holmes movies?

You mean besides the fact that they are generic action movies and the character in them has nothing to do with Sherlock Holmes and RDjr is playing Tony Stark in the 1880s instead?  Nothing.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on January 05, 2012, 03:31:29 PM
what are your problems with the american sherlock holmes movies?
Normally I wouldn't say this, but they practically marketed both of those as Juvenile sex comedies. That is NOT Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Holmes has more to do with Sherlock Holmes being a very complicated person whom you can never figure out and the mystery. That is what Sherlock Holmes is about, it's not about pandering to the lowest common denominator. I could tolerate it in the Transformers movies because hey, the concept doesn't really have much of an intellectual element to it, but when it comes to the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I honestly think he'd be disgusted by what Hollywood did, and proud of what the BBC did.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on January 05, 2012, 03:35:49 PM
what are your problems with the american sherlock holmes movies?
Normally I wouldn't say this, but they practically marketed both of those as Juvenile sex comedies. That is NOT Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Holmes has more to do with Sherlock Holmes being a very complicated person whom you can never figure out and the mystery. That is what Sherlock Holmes is about, it's not about pandering to the lowest common denominator. I could tolerate it in the Transformers movies because hey, the concept doesn't really have much of an intellectual element to it, but when it comes to the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I honestly think he'd be disgusted by what Hollywood did, and proud of what the BBC did.

yeah it's funny because i thought I would love the period based movie version and hate the modern version but it ended up not working out that was.  The series set in modern times captures the spirit of the character,the movie set in the correct period has nothing to do with the character that was created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.  The interesting thing is that they are both telling new stories instead of sticking to the books but the one has Sherlock Holmes in it and the other doesn't.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on January 05, 2012, 03:37:50 PM
im a big fan of sherlock holmes and though i agree these are far from true to his character from the stories, they are still enjoyable movies. and as for what ACD would like,.. well the guy was a jerk and somewhat foolish of a person so i dont hold him in too high esteem. i do hold his works in high esteem though.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: anais.jude on January 05, 2012, 03:45:45 PM
I thought the first Downey Sherlock was convulted and boring. I found the second enjoyable.


I have read many of the stories.


Anyway....just tyring to waste time until I can go home for the day
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: doggans on January 06, 2012, 04:10:40 PM
but when it comes to the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I honestly think he'd be disgusted by what Hollywood did, and proud of what the BBC did.

If the tales are true, Doyle didn't actually give a crap about the Holmes character as anything other than a paycheck generator.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on January 06, 2012, 06:07:03 PM
but when it comes to the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I honestly think he'd be disgusted by what Hollywood did, and proud of what the BBC did.

If the tales are true, Doyle didn't actually give a crap about the Holmes character as anything other than a paycheck generator.
basically. he had to bring him back after the wrestle with moriarty above the waterfalls because the public wanted more, he initially killed off holmes so he could focus on his historical books.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: D.B. Barnes on January 06, 2012, 06:13:51 PM
Must yet another innocent Star Trek thread get derailed by toxic Sherlock Holmes posts?!?
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: anais.jude on January 06, 2012, 06:47:19 PM
Must yet another innocent Star Trek thread get derailed by toxic Sherlock Holmes posts?!?


Ohh It's funny because it's true
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Rainbow Dash on January 06, 2012, 09:22:35 PM
Must yet another innocent Star Trek thread get derailed by toxic Sherlock Holmes posts?!?

Computer, give me a poster capable of derailing Star Trek Threads...
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on January 06, 2012, 09:25:46 PM
so who do you think will play picard in the inevitable tng movie reboot?
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: a pretty girl is like on January 07, 2012, 08:51:07 AM
so who do you think will play picard in the inevitable tng movie reboot?

When we're talking reboots of any kind, for the next ten years, the immediate answer to Who Should Play the Lead Character? is always going to be Hugh Jackman.  Always.  TNG = Hugh Jackman.  Tomb Raider = Hugh Jackman.  James Bond = Hugh Jackman.  He-Man = Hugh Jackman.  Dirty Dancing = Hugh Jackman.  Indiana Jones = Hugh Jackman.  Erin Brockovich = Hugh Jackman.  Etc. and so on and so forth and ampersand and ampersand.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: RoninFox on January 07, 2012, 09:02:27 AM
so who do you think will play picard in the inevitable tng movie reboot?

When we're talking reboots of any kind, for the next ten years, the immediate answer to Who Should Play the Lead Character? is always going to be Hugh Jackman.  Always.  TNG = Hugh Jackman.  Tomb Raider = Hugh Jackman.  James Bond = Hugh Jackman.  He-Man = Hugh Jackman.  Dirty Dancing = Hugh Jackman.  Indiana Jones = Hugh Jackman.  Erin Brockovich = Hugh Jackman.  Etc. and so on and so forth and ampersand and ampersand.

Hugh Jackman IS Shaft! John Shaft!
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: a pretty girl is like on January 07, 2012, 09:03:55 AM
so who do you think will play picard in the inevitable tng movie reboot?

When we're talking reboots of any kind, for the next ten years, the immediate answer to Who Should Play the Lead Character? is always going to be Hugh Jackman.  Always.  TNG = Hugh Jackman.  Tomb Raider = Hugh Jackman.  James Bond = Hugh Jackman.  He-Man = Hugh Jackman.  Dirty Dancing = Hugh Jackman.  Indiana Jones = Hugh Jackman.  Erin Brockovich = Hugh Jackman.  Etc. and so on and so forth and ampersand and ampersand.

Hugh Jackman IS Shaft! John Shaft!

I would watch that. 
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Jito463 on January 23, 2012, 06:24:45 AM
As far as issues with the last Star Trek movie go, I had several.  oddly enough, the villain wasn't one of them.  However, Spock and Uhura making out in an elevator?  Kirk going from cadet straight to Captain on his first assignment?  Beaming across the galaxy onto a moving ship?  So many inconsistencies that cannot be explained away by an altered timeline.  I had no problems with creating an alternate timeline for the story to progress on it's own.  I had no issues with them remaking the series, but there are certain things that should never be changed.  After all (going back to my first point), one of the primary impulses that drive Spock (if you could call it that, for a Vulcan), is his attempts to suppress any trace of his humanity.  Making kissy-face with Uhura doesn't qualify as suppressing his humanity.  It completely changes his character.  Of course, it didn't help that all I could see was Sylar, instead of Spock.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Sideswipe on January 23, 2012, 07:23:24 AM
You can't criticise the new movie on this forum!  The wolves will be coming for you shortly.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on January 23, 2012, 08:04:51 AM
As far as issues with the last Star Trek movie go, I had several.  oddly enough, the villain wasn't one of them.  However, Spock and Uhura making out in an elevator?  Kirk going from cadet straight to Captain on his first assignment?  Beaming across the galaxy onto a moving ship?  So many inconsistencies that cannot be explained away by an altered timeline.  I had no problems with creating an alternate timeline for the story to progress on it's own.  I had no issues with them remaking the series, but there are certain things that should never be changed.  After all (going back to my first point), one of the primary impulses that drive Spock (if you could call it that, for a Vulcan), is his attempts to suppress any trace of his humanity.  Making kissy-face with Uhura doesn't qualify as suppressing his humanity.  It completely changes his character.  Of course, it didn't help that all I could see was Sylar, instead of Spock.
ill give you the transporting across a large space while the ship is at warp speed., but the other two are explainable. this spock has become more emotionally unstable than the original spock, getting more in touch with his human side, hence the make out session. i dont like it, but thats the movie, as for the other one, there are numerous instances of a lower rank gaining the captaincy after the debilitation of a former captain if that person acts meritoriously and goes above and beyond the call of duty in the Star trek universe. and Kirk was going to a special section of starfleet academy in the first place for a command position.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: daltysmilth on January 23, 2012, 08:21:52 AM
You're right about the transporter!  There's no way that imaginary technology would work that way!  And making things work in ways they were never designed to work is completely inconsistent with the original Star Trek.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on January 23, 2012, 08:47:00 AM
You're right about the transporter!  There's no way that imaginary technology would work that way!  And making things work in ways they were never designed to work is completely inconsistent with the original Star Trek.
they explain it in the movie as an equation would allow them to transport to the ship, but the inconsistency lies in the fact that during kirk's era, transporter tech was still fairly new. even in the TNG and DS9 eras, transporting over so large a distance would degrade the image too much. so the ship must have been fairly close in warp still.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: daltysmilth on January 23, 2012, 08:58:31 AM
Yeah but hadn't they started transporting live subjects in Enterprise?  Which was, what, 80 years beforehand?
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on January 23, 2012, 10:38:18 AM
Yeah but hadn't they started transporting live subjects in Enterprise?  Which was, what, 80 years beforehand?

Yeah and in TNG and DS9 They transport at warp speed all the time. In those two series they do say that it is harder then a normal transport but it is the Spock from that timeline who sets it up and just like in those series it doesn't work perfectly so I don't have a problem with it.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on January 23, 2012, 10:46:07 AM
Yeah but hadn't they started transporting live subjects in Enterprise?  Which was, what, 80 years beforehand?
yes but they were still working the kinks out of it. and transporting at warp, i have no problem with, it's the distance that makes me wonder how they did it.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on January 23, 2012, 10:51:15 AM
Yeah but hadn't they started transporting live subjects in Enterprise?  Which was, what, 80 years beforehand?
yes but they were still working the kinks out of it. and transporting at warp, i have no problem with, it's the distance that makes me wonder how they did it.

Yeah i guess but if the choice is between what we got and spending a half hour of screen time showing them catching up with the Enterprise I will go with what we got.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on January 23, 2012, 01:18:12 PM
I am quite pleased with the new cast thus far. But as history has shown us... cast is hardly anything. Peter Weller was in the 5th Season of Dexter and he didn't help that show much at all. Of course, Peter Weller was also in a couple episodes of the last season of Enterprise... and I don't know if that's good or bad. But I really like that they've hired the REAL Sherlock Holmes to be who knows who in the movie. If he's the villain... damn I expect one hell of a son of a bitch of a performance.

I doubt it will be about Khan at this point... unless they're keeping things really well hidden about the cast. I think like the last movie they need to keep the fanbase excited and interested yet keep the mainstream audience happy too. It's a shame that when you try to please a mainstream audience that you normally end up pissing off the fanbase. Seems like everybody in the Trek fanbase hates new Trek except me and maybe a couple hundred other people. 
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on January 23, 2012, 02:01:02 PM
never mind distance was explained.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on January 23, 2012, 02:47:56 PM
I am quite pleased with the new cast thus far. But as history has shown us... cast is hardly anything. Peter Weller was in the 5th Season of Dexter and he didn't help that show much at all. Of course, Peter Weller was also in a couple episodes of the last season of Enterprise... and I don't know if that's good or bad. But I really like that they've hired the REAL Sherlock Holmes to be who knows who in the movie. If he's the villain... damn I expect one hell of a son of a bitch of a performance.

I doubt it will be about Khan at this point... unless they're keeping things really well hidden about the cast. I think like the last movie they need to keep the fanbase excited and interested yet keep the mainstream audience happy too. It's a shame that when you try to please a mainstream audience that you normally end up pissing off the fanbase. Seems like everybody in the Trek fanbase hates new Trek except me and maybe a couple hundred other people. 

Count me as another person who loved the new movie.  Except for the scene in the bar.  It looked to much like a modern day bar for my taste,to me it didn't look like it belonged in the Star Trek universe.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on January 23, 2012, 02:51:43 PM
I am quite pleased with the new cast thus far. But as history has shown us... cast is hardly anything. Peter Weller was in the 5th Season of Dexter and he didn't help that show much at all. Of course, Peter Weller was also in a couple episodes of the last season of Enterprise... and I don't know if that's good or bad. But I really like that they've hired the REAL Sherlock Holmes to be who knows who in the movie. If he's the villain... damn I expect one hell of a son of a bitch of a performance.

I doubt it will be about Khan at this point... unless they're keeping things really well hidden about the cast. I think like the last movie they need to keep the fanbase excited and interested yet keep the mainstream audience happy too. It's a shame that when you try to please a mainstream audience that you normally end up pissing off the fanbase. Seems like everybody in the Trek fanbase hates new Trek except me and maybe a couple hundred other people. 

Count me as another person who loved the new movie.  Except for the scene in the bar.  It looked to much like a modern day bar for my taste,to me it didn't look like it belonged in the Star Trek universe.
loved the movie as well
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: anais.jude on January 23, 2012, 03:18:08 PM
I also loved Chris Pine Shirtless this fine Trek film
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on January 23, 2012, 03:20:37 PM
I also loved Chris Pine Shirtless this fine Trek film
:D A woman once told me she'd love to climb Chris's Pine.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Sideswipe on January 23, 2012, 06:17:05 PM
this spock has become more emotionally unstable than the original spock, getting more in touch with his human side, hence the make out session.[/quote]

I still think thats BS and really inconsistant.  It seems badly placed to try and apeal to female viewers.

[/quote]there are numerous instances of a lower rank gaining the captaincy after the debilitation of a former captain if that person acts meritoriously and goes above and beyond the call of duty in the Star trek universe. and Kirk was going to a special section of starfleet academy in the first place for a command position.
[/quote]

Can you name a single instance where someone who hasn't graduated training has been given command of a brand new flag ship with less than a day's experience commanding anything?  Why the brand new Enterprise seems crewed entirely by recent grads in the first place boggles the mind as well.

Kirk was not going to a special section of the academy.  He was going to command training that numerous other people had gone through.



Yeah but hadn't they started transporting live subjects in Enterprise?  Which was, what, 80 years beforehand?

Yeah and in TNG and DS9 They transport at warp speed all the time. In those two series they do say that it is harder then a normal transport but it is the Spock from that timeline who sets it up and just like in those series it doesn't work perfectly so I don't have a problem with it.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: turbospaz3000 on January 23, 2012, 06:32:32 PM
i cant tell who is saying what.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on January 23, 2012, 07:00:25 PM
this spock has become more emotionally unstable than the original spock, getting more in touch with his human side, hence the make out session.


I still think thats BS and really inconsistant.  It seems badly placed to try and apeal to female viewers.

[/quote]there are numerous instances of a lower rank gaining the captaincy after the debilitation of a former captain if that person acts meritoriously and goes above and beyond the call of duty in the Star trek universe. and Kirk was going to a special section of starfleet academy in the first place for a command position.
[/quote]

Can you name a single instance where someone who hasn't graduated training has been given command of a brand new flag ship with less than a day's experience commanding anything?  Why the brand new Enterprise seems crewed entirely by recent grads in the first place boggles the mind as well.

Kirk was not going to a special section of the academy.  He was going to command training that numerous other people had gone through.



Yeah but hadn't they started transporting live subjects in Enterprise?  Which was, what, 80 years beforehand?

Yeah and in TNG and DS9 They transport at warp speed all the time. In those two series they do say that it is harder then a normal transport but it is the Spock from that timeline who sets it up and just like in those series it doesn't work perfectly so I don't have a problem with it.
[/quote]

The same reason they were on the ship in Star Trek II.  The same reason the Enterprise is always the only ship in range to save the galaxy,the same reason the crew spends 30 years at the same rank doing the same job. Starfleet has always operated on the rule of cool instead of real world rules. This movie didn't break any rules that had not already been broken in Star Trek's past.  Go back and watch the show,if a real captain broke orders as many times as Kirk did would he still be in command of a state of the art military ship?
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Sideswipe on January 23, 2012, 07:12:21 PM
They are on the ship in II because by that time the Enterprise is 30 years old and a training ship assigned to the academy, no longer in active duty. 

I realize I forgot to answer your post about the transporting at warp.  Yes it's been done, but only when the both locations are relatively close.  Not many light years away. 
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Jito463 on January 23, 2012, 08:00:16 PM
Actually, to the best of my knowledge, the only time transporting was attempted at warp, was when both ships were traveling at the same speed, within close proximity.  This was transporting from a stationary location to a ship in warp.  That has never been done before in any of the series (again, to the best of my knowledge).  Mind you, this is speaking merely as someone who likes watching the show, not as a nerd who keep tracks of every single technical detail, so this is mostly off the top of my head.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on January 23, 2012, 08:30:43 PM
All I can say is yes they broke a rule and if you think the most important part of the film makers job is to get the workings of the transporter(a device that science tells us can never exist in the first place)right and never change them then just avoid this movie because it is in fact the worst piece of garbage ever made.

But cheer up I am sure some day the Star Trek technical manual will be turned into a film,and it will have no story or action scenes and will be the greatest film ever made.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Sideswipe on January 23, 2012, 08:33:05 PM
Its not the fact that it flys in the face of what we know about transporter technology.  It's the fact that it's a cheap cop out and shitty writing.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Jito463 on January 23, 2012, 08:36:31 PM
In my opinion, they broke several rules (both in character development and in technical details).  This was merely one of them.  I already covered part of the character development problems I had with it, too.  Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?  This isn't just about one technical detail, it's about multiple problems that simply altering the timeline shouldn't have changed.  While I understand the need to suspend disbelief for a movie (yes, i realize that transporters do not actually exist), the movie should still follow the rules of the fictional world it takes place in, which were set by the TV series and movies that preceded it.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on January 23, 2012, 08:46:10 PM
So again why not just film the tech Shatner reading the tech manual.  You know before TNG they couldn't transport at warp period so TNG changed the rules too.  Heck Starfleet didn't even exist in the first season of Star Trek.  Star Trek season one took place in the 2100s and the Enterprise answered to the United Earth Space probe agency,season two on it was in the 2200s and part of the United Federation of Planets,James R Kirk was changed to James T Kirk for no reason,Romulans flew Klingon ships in the third season,Spock can from Vulcania at one point and his mother wasn't human.  Face it Star Trek has never been well written.  If the load of crap being produced right now offends you because it is not in line with the crap you think is important all I can say is avoid the movie.  i don't think there is anything else to say.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on January 23, 2012, 08:46:54 PM
well it is set in an alternate timeline, so maybe the technology developed differently and.... wait what the hell? i just realized, why the hell didnt the temporal prime directive come into play here, this should have been caught by the Federation department of temporal investigations!


haha just kidding.... but no really they should have stepped in here.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Jito463 on January 23, 2012, 08:50:56 PM
So again why not just film the tech Shatner reading the tech manual.  You know before TNG they couldn't transport at warp period so TNG changed the rules too.  Heck Starfleet didn't even exist in the first season of Star Trek.  Star Trek season one took place in the 2100s and the Enterprise answered to the United Earth Space probe agency,season two on it was in the 2200s and part of the United Federation of Planets,James R Kirk was changed to James T Kirk for no reason,Romulans flew Klingon ships in the third season,Spock can from Vulcania at one point and his mother wasn't human.  Face it Star Trek has never been well written.  If the load of crap being produced right now offends you because it is not in line with the crap you think is important all I can say is avoid the movie.  i don't think there is anything else to say.

Sheesh, what crawled up your backside?  Any reason you're getting so testy about my post?
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Sideswipe on January 23, 2012, 08:53:49 PM
that is standard Doctor Who
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on January 23, 2012, 08:56:21 PM
So again why not just film the tech Shatner reading the tech manual.  You know before TNG they couldn't transport at warp period so TNG changed the rules too.  Heck Starfleet didn't even exist in the first season of Star Trek.  Star Trek season one took place in the 2100s and the Enterprise answered to the United Earth Space probe agency,season two on it was in the 2200s and part of the United Federation of Planets,James R Kirk was changed to James T Kirk for no reason,Romulans flew Klingon ships in the third season,Spock can from Vulcania at one point and his mother wasn't human.  Face it Star Trek has never been well written.  If the load of crap being produced right now offends you because it is not in line with the crap you think is important all I can say is avoid the movie.  i don't think there is anything else to say.

Sheesh, what crawled up your backside?  Any reason you're getting so testy about my post?
dont worry about it, that's doc.... and a few other people on the forum as well. dont take it personal. technically you're not a fully fledged poster on this forum until he and at least two others have said that you should be raped to death by wolves. this is a popular venting forum i think.

Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: D.B. Barnes on January 23, 2012, 09:01:24 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/1teJK.jpg)

A whole new worrrrld...
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: daltysmilth on January 23, 2012, 09:13:27 PM
In my opinion, they broke several rules (both in character development and in technical details).  This was merely one of them.  I already covered part of the character development problems I had with it, too.  Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?  This isn't just about one technical detail, it's about multiple problems that simply altering the timeline shouldn't have changed.  While I understand the need to suspend disbelief for a movie (yes, i realize that transporters do not actually exist), the movie should still follow the rules of the fictional world it takes place in, which were set by the TV series and movies that preceded it.

The point is, Star Trek breaks its own rules all the time.  In TNG, no one in the Federation except the El Aurians had heard of the Borg until Q sent the Enterprise to their sector of the galaxy.  Then subsequent series said that the Federation had encountered the Borg numerous times before that.  In Star Trek II, Kirk claims the Klingons don't take prisoners.  Then in Star Trek III, the Klingon commander executes his gunner for accidentally destroying the U.S.S. Grissom, saying that he wanted prisoners.  In Star Trek 6, Uhura, the communications officer, who presumably got that post because of her skill with languages, needs a Klingon-to-English dictionary.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on January 24, 2012, 06:06:53 AM
In my opinion, they broke several rules (both in character development and in technical details).  This was merely one of them.  I already covered part of the character development problems I had with it, too.  Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?  This isn't just about one technical detail, it's about multiple problems that simply altering the timeline shouldn't have changed.  While I understand the need to suspend disbelief for a movie (yes, i realize that transporters do not actually exist), the movie should still follow the rules of the fictional world it takes place in, which were set by the TV series and movies that preceded it.

The point is, Star Trek breaks its own rules all the time.  In TNG, no one in the Federation except the El Aurians had heard of the Borg until Q sent the Enterprise to their sector of the galaxy.  Then subsequent series said that the Federation had encountered the Borg numerous times before that.  In Star Trek II, Kirk claims the Klingons don't take prisoners.  Then in Star Trek III, the Klingon commander executes his gunner for accidentally destroying the U.S.S. Grissom, saying that he wanted prisoners.  In Star Trek 6, Uhura, the communications officer, who presumably got that post because of her skill with languages, needs a Klingon-to-English dictionary.

Yeah the fact is(and I say this as a life long Star Trek fan)how the tech works and character back story has always been whatever the writers want it to be on a week to week basis in Star Trek.  For some reason this movie is the only time some of the fan chose to notice it.  Again if the movie wasn't your cup of tea I am not sure what else to say other then just don't see the new one.  I hated the movie Sherlock Holmes but you don't see me complaining about the sequel in it's thread,I just avoid it and I am happy.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Prince of Space 5049 on January 24, 2012, 07:50:20 AM
I know this is covered ground, but we need to remember how Spock behaved in the original pilot episode:
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k500/PrinceofSpace5150/Spocksmiles.jpg)
These characters have never been carved in stone.  They have always been ever changing and developing.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Sideswipe on January 24, 2012, 08:15:52 AM
You can't really use the pilot.  Pilots often have a lot of discrepancies.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on January 24, 2012, 08:17:54 AM
and they're usually alcoholics.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Prince of Space 5049 on January 24, 2012, 08:22:27 AM
Of course I can use pilots.  Characters are always at the mercy of the writers.  They are fictional characters.  Always open to interpretation.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on January 24, 2012, 10:24:54 AM
Of course I can use pilots.  Characters are always at the mercy of the writers.  They are fictional characters.  Always open to interpretation.

Also Spock showed emotion in a lot of the first season episodes.  If you look at them in filmed order it wasn't until around episode 7 or 8 that they started to nail him down.  Also as I point out pretty much everything changed at some point,even the main character's name and the time period the show took place in.  if you are saying that anything that doesn't line up with what was said in the past is badly written then there were only ever two well written episode of Star Trek,the Cage and Where no man has gone before. After those two episodes writers started changing things and nothing made sense.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on January 24, 2012, 06:55:35 PM
I would like to add that for all the shit that Star Trek 2009 gets thrown at it(still quite surprising to me), nobody ever bothered to look at Voyager, Enterprise and the TNG movies, which were by and large, absolute shit. Yes, even Enterprise had a few decent episodes, but dammit nobody remembers how fucking retarded Insurrection, Nemesis and Generations were? I'll tell you why things had to be changed for the new movie, it's because of Enterprise. Yes, I in part blame Enterprise because how are you going to make an audience take a set that looks vastly technologically inferior to Enterprise seriously when the movie takes place close to a hundred years later?

In case I didn't explain my point adequately, all the dumbasses who accuse Star Trek 2009 of being a dumb action movie obviously forgot all about Nemesis, and insurrection, and hell, even First Contact(Assimilate this! That is because you have not been properly... stimulated yet, was it good for you too? Resistance... is futile!)

Changing things can be good because now things can go in directions we may not be able to imagine. That is exciting and interesting to me.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Sideswipe on January 24, 2012, 08:06:08 PM
Are you kidding.  Nemesis and Insurrection got tons of shit thrown at it.  Even though they probably have less plot holes and and aren't built around a string of improbable coincedences thatn 2009 had.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on January 24, 2012, 08:44:53 PM
Are you kidding.  Nemesis and Insurrection got tons of shit thrown at it.  Even though they probably have less plot holes and and aren't built around a string of improbable coincedences thatn 2009 had.
I can live with improbable coincidences, especially since two is a coincidence, three times is a pattern. I am presuming the two coincidences You are referring to are 1) Kirk finding Spock on Vulcan's moon, which honestly isn't that much of a coincidence since a) both of them were headed to the same Federation outpost, and b) They were both in a cave, the most logical and obvious place a person would go for cover; and 2) Kirk being in the academy at the same time Nero captures Spock Prime. Also, Nemesis has received something of an re-evaluation lately from the Trek fan base. I am surprised at how many "fans" say "Nemesis good! Star Trek open bracket 2009 close bracket bad!" yet I have never heard people complain about Insurrection or Nemesis as much as they do about Star Trek '09 Sideswipe.

Also, as far as Nero goes... he has an excuse for his incompetence. He's a mining captain! He's not a Tactical genius like Shinzon, he is never purported to be one at all. I'm guessing Nero probably rode the short bus to Romulan academy every day. Now that might sound like a cop-out, but Nero being a great villain or not isn't the point of the story. Nero's just a psycho who got screwed over by circumstance. You know what else? We live in a world where idiots shove chainsaws down their pants in an attempt to steal them, don't even tell me that an inverse lack of logic doesn't apply to an Alien race... especially when said Alien's planet is destroyed.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on January 24, 2012, 09:14:05 PM
Are you kidding.  Nemesis and Insurrection got tons of shit thrown at it.  Even though they probably have less plot holes and and aren't built around a string of improbable coincedences thatn 2009 had.
I can live with improbable coincidences, especially since two is a coincidence, three times is a pattern. I am presuming the two coincidences You are referring to are 1) Kirk finding Spock on Vulcan's moon, which honestly isn't that much of a coincidence since a) both of them were headed to the same Federation outpost, and b) They were both in a cave, the most logical and obvious place a person would go for cover; and 2) Kirk being in the academy at the same time Nero captures Spock Prime. Also, Nemesis has received something of an re-evaluation lately from the Trek fan base. I am surprised at how many "fans" say "Nemesis good! Star Trek open bracket 2009 close bracket bad!" yet I have never heard people complain about Insurrection or Nemesis as much as they do about Star Trek '09 Sideswipe.

Also, as far as Nero goes... he has an excuse for his incompetence. He's a mining captain! He's not a Tactical genius like Shinzon, he is never purported to be one at all. I'm guessing Nero probably rode the short bus to Romulan academy every day. Now that might sound like a cop-out, but Nero being a great villain or not isn't the point of the story. Nero's just a psycho who got screwed over by circumstance. You know what else? We live in a world where idiots shove chainsaws down their pants in an attempt to steal them, don't even tell me that an inverse lack of logic doesn't apply to an Alien race... especially when said Alien's planet is destroyed.
i never had a problem with the trek movies. even when
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on January 24, 2012, 09:20:48 PM
i never had a problem with the trek movies. even when
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Yes, that's all in countdown, and yes I will admit that had they added plot elements and detail from that series, it would have tightened the movie up quite a bit... well, there's always the possibility of a director's cut.

In defense of Star Trek 09, I think the premise is just as important as story and execution, possibly more.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: ManUnderMask on January 24, 2012, 10:35:33 PM
Hopefully the entire movie will be good, not just the scenes with the bridge crew.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Prince of Space 5049 on January 25, 2012, 08:02:21 AM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  The only time I start picking apart a movie, is when I am frustrated by it and not enjoying it.  If I am having a good time watching a movie, I really don't care about plot points and inconsistencies.

When I watched Star Trek '09 I had a good time.  I know, take me out, whip me, spit apon me, nail me to a tree.  I'm sorry, I enjoyed the damn thing.  Much more than the other ST movies.  Lens flare and all.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on January 25, 2012, 09:55:54 AM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  The only time I start picking apart a movie, is when I am frustrated by it and not enjoying it.  If I am having a good time watching a movie, I really don't care about plot points and inconsistencies.

When I watched Star Trek '09 I had a good time.  I know, take me out, whip me, spit apon me, nail me to a tree.  I'm sorry, I enjoyed the damn thing.  Much more than the other ST movies.  Lens flare and all.

Well said.

It is number five on my list of favorite Star trek movies but I enjoyed it so I don't care if the transporter doesn't worked exactly the same as it has in the past.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on January 25, 2012, 11:47:31 AM
I think what I always loved about Star Trek 09 was its ability to create tension. Throughout the whole movie I was trying to visualize how the Enterprise could possibly destroy the Narada... I couldn't even imagine that happening, and then they come up with a pretty clever plan. Well, clever as far as cadets go, and I might even go as far as saying as Star Trek goes, it was probably the best plan they could have come up with. If tension is what makes a movie great, then Star Trek 09 is indeed great.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Jito463 on January 26, 2012, 02:51:29 PM
In my opinion, they broke several rules (both in character development and in technical details).  This was merely one of them.  I already covered part of the character development problems I had with it, too.  Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?  This isn't just about one technical detail, it's about multiple problems that simply altering the timeline shouldn't have changed.  While I understand the need to suspend disbelief for a movie (yes, i realize that transporters do not actually exist), the movie should still follow the rules of the fictional world it takes place in, which were set by the TV series and movies that preceded it.

The point is, Star Trek breaks its own rules all the time.  In TNG, no one in the Federation except the El Aurians had heard of the Borg until Q sent the Enterprise to their sector of the galaxy.  Then subsequent series said that the Federation had encountered the Borg numerous times before that.  In Star Trek II, Kirk claims the Klingons don't take prisoners.  Then in Star Trek III, the Klingon commander executes his gunner for accidentally destroying the U.S.S. Grissom, saying that he wanted prisoners.  In Star Trek 6, Uhura, the communications officer, who presumably got that post because of her skill with languages, needs a Klingon-to-English dictionary.

Yeah the fact is(and I say this as a life long Star Trek fan)how the tech works and character back story has always been whatever the writers want it to be on a week to week basis in Star Trek.  For some reason this movie is the only time some of the fan chose to notice it.  Again if the movie wasn't your cup of tea I am not sure what else to say other then just don't see the new one.  I hated the movie Sherlock Holmes but you don't see me complaining about the sequel in it's thread,I just avoid it and I am happy.

No, this isn't the only time I've noticed it.  In ST6, when the Klingons start talking about the "original" Klingon version of Shakespeare, that always bugged me.  And the backstory of Seven in Voyager always irked me, too (the timeline never added up).  I found those elements just as disdainful.  It's not about changing things, it's about breaking the immersion.  For me, those details break immersion for me, and prevented me from enjoying the movie fully.  I think the most glaring aspect was how Kirk became captain straight from cadet.  Taking over the ship in a crisis was one thing, but then they make him captain?  That was just such pathetically poor writing.  There is no military organization that would ever put a cadet in charge of a ship, especially not their flagship.  And Starfleet has always been shown as having the structure of the military, even if it's not explicitly written that way.

*EDIT*
I'm not trying to say that this is the worst movie (I still believe ST5 holds that title), but there's enough aspects of it that constantly break immersion that I find difficult to just accept.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: daltysmilth on January 27, 2012, 12:01:30 AM
This is the same "military" that has on numerous occasions left its main base of operations (Earth) completely undefended.  How many times have they used the old "the Enterprise is the only ship in the sector" routine?
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Sideswipe on January 27, 2012, 07:42:42 AM
Earth is actually very well protected.  As far as "the only ship in the sector routine"?  Twice, TMP and Generations.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Bahana on January 29, 2012, 12:18:17 PM
I am a big Trek fan and went to the opening night in 2009.  I doubt I pay to see the next one. The last movie was so-so. I'm sick of alternate timeline/time travel stories in Star Trek, but I do realize the new films are made to bring in new fans and I guess changing the timeline was needed in order to have fresh stories.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on January 29, 2012, 12:34:52 PM
I don't understand why some people are so upset about the timeline thing.  I don't see how setting the show in alternate universe so some of the rules can be changed to attract new is any different then setting a new show one hundred years latter as an excuse to change the rules and get new fans the way TNG did.

New production teams like to try new things and it doesn't bother.  What does bother me is one the same people stay in control too long and you end up with a show like Voyager that is 90% reused scripts from TNG.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on January 29, 2012, 02:53:58 PM
New production teams like to try new things and it doesn't bother.  What does bother me is one the same people stay in control too long and you end up with a show like Voyager that is 90% reused scripts from TNG.
I agree. It was a bold move to Start from the very beginning of TOS, but even bolder when I saw Vulcan being destroyed. I was sitting there and I was like no way... this can't happen... and then when Vulcan disappeared it honestly chilled me to the bone because I thought Holy shit, if they can do that they can do anything.. ANYTHING! The hardcore fans need to put aside their personal feelings(mostly because this is an ALTERNATE universe... it's okay to change things!) and see the potential for unique and new stories in this alternate universe with the TOS characters.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Darth Geek on January 29, 2012, 03:16:29 PM
I agree. It was a bold move to Start from the very beginning of TOS, but even bolder when I saw Vulcan being destroyed. I was sitting there and I was like no way... this can't happen... and then when Vulcan disappeared it honestly chilled me to the bone because I thought Holy shit, if they can do that they can do anything.. ANYTHING!
Exactly my feelings, too. I think that's a large part of why they did it, too. It really brings a tension, as Gunflyer said, to it.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on January 29, 2012, 06:50:18 PM
I agree. It was a bold move to Start from the very beginning of TOS, but even bolder when I saw Vulcan being destroyed. I was sitting there and I was like no way... this can't happen... and then when Vulcan disappeared it honestly chilled me to the bone because I thought Holy shit, if they can do that they can do anything.. ANYTHING!
Exactly my feelings, too. I think that's a large part of why they did it, too. It really brings a tension, as Gunflyer said, to it.

and romulus ends up destroyed. anybody want to bet what next major planet they're gonna destroy? bajor? Cardassia Prime?.... Qo'Nos?!
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Sideswipe on January 29, 2012, 07:08:06 PM
Fuck it, why not blow up Earth.  Thats dark and gritty.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on January 29, 2012, 08:16:18 PM
New production teams like to try new things and it doesn't bother.  What does bother me is one the same people stay in control too long and you end up with a show like Voyager that is 90% reused scripts from TNG.
I agree. It was a bold move to Start from the very beginning of TOS, but even bolder when I saw Vulcan being destroyed. I was sitting there and I was like no way... this can't happen... and then when Vulcan disappeared it honestly chilled me to the bone because I thought Holy shit, if they can do that they can do anything.. ANYTHING! The hardcore fans need to put aside their personal feelings(mostly because this is an ALTERNATE universe... it's okay to change things!) and see the potential for unique and new stories in this alternate universe with the TOS characters.

Yeah i agree and it has nothing to do with dark and gritty(just see what I have said in the past about NuBSG to see how I feel about that)because the movie wasn't but it did have a sense of danger that has been lacking in Star trek for a long time.  Fro the first time since DS9 ended I felt there were stakes and that things could go wrong so there was a sense of excitement to this movie that Star Trek really needed.  The biggest problem Star Trek had at the time was that everything was always getting a quick fix well there were no quick fixes in this movie,they didn't go back in time save Vulcan and there were no back up characters standing by to replace someone if they died,that to me is a huge step forward for Star Trek after the TNG movies,Voyager,and the first two years or so of Enterprise.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Sideswipe on January 29, 2012, 09:23:41 PM
Star Trek has always been about second chances.  Far more than just giving up when shit goes wrong.  Vulcan's fucked, oh well.  Let's not even try and figure out how the bad guy went back in time and try and stop him.  So Star Trek 4 should have been the shortest movie in the series.  Kirk should have given up and flew away when the President told him to leave.  As Spock says, "There are always possibilities."
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on January 29, 2012, 10:50:50 PM
Star Trek has always been about second chances.  Far more than just giving up when shit goes wrong.  Vulcan's fucked, oh well.  Let's not even try and figure out how the bad guy went back in time and try and stop him.  So Star Trek 4 should have been the shortest movie in the series.  Kirk should have given up and flew away when the President told him to leave.  As Spock says, "There are always possibilities."

See that is what was wrong with Star Trek,the producers were catering to the hard core fans who want the rest button pushed every forty five minutes and there never being any danger of anything going wrong.  the trouble is that is not good drama and there are only about 100 people in the world who watch a movie to see a much of people in jump suits be in no danger what so ever.

Don't worry IU am sure some day your idea of the greatest film of all time will be made,Shatner reading the Star Trek Wiki.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on January 29, 2012, 11:53:15 PM
Star Trek has always been about second chances.  Far more than just giving up when shit goes wrong.  Vulcan's fucked, oh well.  Let's not even try and figure out how the bad guy went back in time and try and stop him.  So Star Trek 4 should have been the shortest movie in the series.  Kirk should have given up and flew away when the President told him to leave.  As Spock says, "There are always possibilities."

See that is what was wrong with Star Trek,the producers were catering to the hard core fans who want the rest button pushed every forty five minutes and there never being any danger of anything going wrong.  the trouble is that is not good drama and there are only about 100 people in the world who watch a movie to see a much of people in jump suits be in no danger what so ever.

Don't worry IU am sure some day your idea of the greatest film of all time will be made,Shatner reading the Star Trek Wiki.
why the bloody hell cant people just appreciate the varying incarnations of a great franchise/idea. if you can handle the transition from MST3K to Rifftrax and still love it, you can handle the new Star trek Movie(s)
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: ScottotD on January 30, 2012, 03:33:08 AM
Star Trek has always been about second chances.  Far more than just giving up when shit goes wrong.  Vulcan's fucked, oh well.  Let's not even try and figure out how the bad guy went back in time and try and stop him.  So Star Trek 4 should have been the shortest movie in the series.  Kirk should have given up and flew away when the President told him to leave.  As Spock says, "There are always possibilities."

See that is what was wrong with Star Trek,the producers were catering to the hard core fans who want the rest button pushed every forty five minutes and there never being any danger of anything going wrong.  the trouble is that is not good drama and there are only about 100 people in the world who watch a movie to see a much of people in jump suits be in no danger what so ever.

Don't worry IU am sure some day your idea of the greatest film of all time will be made,Shatner reading the Star Trek Wiki.
why the bloody hell cant people just appreciate the varying incarnations of a great franchise/idea. if you can handle the transition from MST3K to Rifftrax and still love it, you can handle the new Star trek Movie(s)

The thread for the last Star Trek movie, the Sherlock movie, Dr. Who movie and pretty much every sequel, prequel or remake says otherwise.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Invader_quirk on January 30, 2012, 07:31:33 AM
Don't worry IU am sure some day your idea of the greatest film of all time will be made,Shatner reading the Star Trek Wiki.

 :D
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Sideswipe on January 30, 2012, 07:53:50 AM
Star Trek has always been about second chances.  Far more than just giving up when shit goes wrong.  Vulcan's fucked, oh well.  Let's not even try and figure out how the bad guy went back in time and try and stop him.  So Star Trek 4 should have been the shortest movie in the series.  Kirk should have given up and flew away when the President told him to leave.  As Spock says, "There are always possibilities."

See that is what was wrong with Star Trek,the producers were catering to the hard core fans who want the rest button pushed every forty five minutes and there never being any danger of anything going wrong.  the trouble is that is not good drama and there are only about 100 people in the world who watch a movie to see a much of people in jump suits be in no danger what so ever.

Don't worry IU am sure some day your idea of the greatest film of all time will be made,Shatner reading the Star Trek Wiki.

Way to completely miss my point, as usual, Doc.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: daltysmilth on January 30, 2012, 10:28:34 AM
No, I think Doc understood your point.  Going back to stop Vulcan from being destroyed would have been even more of a copout than the rest of the movie.  Almost as bad as having old Spock wake up at the end and say "I just had a really weird dream!"
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: shodan on January 30, 2012, 10:32:04 AM
No, I think Doc understood your point.  Going back to stop Vulcan from being destroyed would have been even more of a copout than the rest of the movie.  Almost as bad as having old Spock wake up at the end and say "I just had a really weird dream!"
i think this new timeline has a great deal of potential, just as the mirror universe does. that's why im happily anticipating this movie. i like where it's going.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on January 30, 2012, 12:30:06 PM
No, I think Doc understood your point.  Going back to stop Vulcan from being destroyed would have been even more of a copout than the rest of the movie.  Almost as bad as having old Spock wake up at the end and say "I just had a really weird dream!"

Yeah exactly.  There needed to be something in the middle of the movie that showed there was real danger.  the Vulcans have not be wiped out but by getting rid of the planet  we were shown that there is danger here and this universe isn't just going to be a carbon copy of the prime universe  with younger actors. Even if you are a huge Star trek fan like me you know can't be completely sure where the story is going to go,and that to me is what makes an exciting movie and it is what was missing for Voyager and the first two seasons of Enterprise.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: D.B. Barnes on January 30, 2012, 12:39:53 PM
Star Trek has always been about second chances.  Far more than just giving up when shit goes wrong.  Vulcan's fucked, oh well.  Let's not even try and figure out how the bad guy went back in time and try and stop him.  So Star Trek 4 should have been the shortest movie in the series.  Kirk should have given up and flew away when the President told him to leave.  As Spock says, "There are always possibilities."

See that is what was wrong with Star Trek,the producers were catering to the hard core fans who want the rest button pushed every forty five minutes and there never being any danger of anything going wrong.  the trouble is that is not good drama and there are only about 100 people in the world who watch a movie to see a much of people in jump suits be in no danger what so ever.

Don't worry IU am sure some day your idea of the greatest film of all time will be made,Shatner reading the Star Trek Wiki.
why the bloody hell cant people just appreciate the varying incarnations of a great franchise/idea.

Because some of those incarnations blow, and blow big time. For example, I appreciate the Star Wars franchise on the whole, but I don't appreciate anything about the prequels. Plenty of folks love the Transformers franchise, yet hate the Bay movies with the burning intensity of a thousand suns. I don't see why people should have to appreciate every single embodiment of a franchise simply because it bears its name and likeness.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on January 30, 2012, 12:56:09 PM
Because some of those incarnations blow, and blow big time. For example, I appreciate the Star Wars franchise on the whole, but I don't appreciate anything about the prequels. Plenty of folks love the Transformers franchise, yet hate the Bay movies with the burning intensity of a thousand suns. I don't see why people should have to appreciate every single embodiment of a franchise simply because it bears its name and likeness.
I try to have a fair point of view about things. For example, while I liked the Transformers films, I can't argue when a person says they suck balls big time, because I can see where they are coming from. I'm not insane enough to say Oh those are great films. While I enjoy them, I cannot rightfully disagree with the complaints about them. Fair's fair, right?
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: anais.jude on January 30, 2012, 01:43:21 PM
Ugh....can I see a picture of Chris Pine sans shirt? This conversation is sooooooooooooooooooo long and forever taking
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: D.B. Barnes on January 30, 2012, 01:51:31 PM
Ugh....can I see a picture of Chris Pine sans shirt? This conversation is sooooooooooooooooooo long and forever taking

If you dont like my posts than ignore them. Nodoby gun to your head forcing you too read all the posts. I don't have anythnig to say to a person who is bored with the thread. Will you die of a brain tumur if you stop reading the thread? If not than leave and dont come back. If you want to see naked pictures of peeple, than you shuld go to a pornografy site.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on January 30, 2012, 02:01:36 PM
Ugh....can I see a picture of Chris Pine sans shirt? This conversation is sooooooooooooooooooo long and forever taking
Your wish is granted.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: ScottotD on January 30, 2012, 05:50:39 PM
Ugh....can I see a picture of Chris Pine sans shirt? This conversation is sooooooooooooooooooo long and forever taking

If you dont like my posts the movies than ignore them. Nodoby gun to your head forcing you to read all the posts watch every sequel, prequel or remake. Will you die of a brain tumur if you stop reading the thread watching them? If not than leave and dont come back skip them. If you want to see naked pictures of people, than you should go to a pornography site.

 ;D
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on January 31, 2012, 02:34:50 AM
http://www.movieweb.com/news/benedict-cumberbatch-talks-villain-role-in-star-trek-2 (http://www.movieweb.com/news/benedict-cumberbatch-talks-villain-role-in-star-trek-2)

Doesn't sound like we will be getting any info on Cumberbatch's character any time soon.  Glad to hear he os happy with the part,whoever it is he is playing.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Prince of Space 5049 on January 31, 2012, 10:09:42 AM
I can't wait for the new ST.  It has once again become fresh and relevent to me.  I consider myself a casual, not hardcore fan.  I grew up as a small kid watching the original on tv.  There was nothing like it at the time, and I loved watching it.  I never really followed the other incarnations that closely.  I watched the following movies with less, and less interest.  Then the reboot came along, and I had a hell of a lot of fun watching it.  So bing it on!
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: anais.jude on January 31, 2012, 10:11:03 AM
Ugh....can I see a picture of Chris Pine sans shirt? This conversation is sooooooooooooooooooo long and forever taking

If you dont like my posts than ignore them. Nodoby gun to your head forcing you too read all the posts. I don't have anythnig to say to a person who is bored with the thread. Will you die of a brain tumur if you stop reading the thread? If not than leave and dont come back. If you want to see naked pictures of peeple, than you shuld go to a pornografy site.

...are you joking Barnes? :(
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Russell on January 31, 2012, 10:43:44 AM
...are you joking Barnes? :(
I'm sure he is, I can't imagine the real Barnes talking like that.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: D.B. Barnes on January 31, 2012, 11:13:53 AM
...are you joking Barnes? :(
I'm sure he is, I can't imagine the real Barnes talking like that.

I'm actually a bit insulted by the question.  ???
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: anais.jude on January 31, 2012, 11:23:14 AM
...are you joking Barnes? :(
I'm sure he is, I can't imagine the real Barnes talking like that.

I'm actually a bit insulted by the question.  ???

Well you do a REALLY good Doc impression
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: anais.jude on January 31, 2012, 01:05:49 PM
Then why wouldn't you think he was joking?


Um...midichlorians? I really don't know, just ignore me
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Rainbow Dash on February 24, 2012, 06:06:12 PM
First pictures. 

http://trekmovie.com/2012/02/24/more-photos-from-star-trek-set-imax-camera-spotted/

Not posting because the villain is still technically a secret, but there seems to be little to the imagination after looking at these photos unless they do end up going with someone totally original.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: D.B. Barnes on February 24, 2012, 06:23:14 PM
THE BATCH IS ON THE SET!!!
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: D.B. Barnes on February 24, 2012, 06:35:31 PM
THE BATCH IS ON THE SET!!!

My prediction for who he is:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: anais.jude on February 25, 2012, 06:43:12 AM
Um....why no pictures of Chris Pine without a shirt? Way to create buzz Star Trek people. Like anyone will bother to see the movie unless Pine is shirtless. Guffaw


Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Rainbow Dash on February 29, 2012, 01:44:22 PM
Lot of people thinking it might not be Kahn, but Gary Mitchell.
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Sideswipe on February 29, 2012, 01:49:30 PM
Why would Gary Mitchell be older than Kirk now?
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: D.B. Barnes on February 29, 2012, 02:19:41 PM
No biggie, but here's the fight video from the set:

WARNING: You might want to mute the sound. The mincing voice over guy made me wanna stab somebody in the throat.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Henry88 on April 29, 2012, 01:32:45 PM
UPDATE!! Nimoy In 'Another' STAR TREK Movie?? (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/55314)

Quote
At one point in its coverage, the CNN posse on the ground in NYC rounded up Leonard Nimoy for a quick discussion about the vehicle's arrival.  Throughout the piece, the CNN gang could barely control their Geekitude.  In their final moments of discussion with Mr. Nimoy...unable to restrain themselves any longer...they went there...trumpeting the "new" STAR TREK movie (presumably referring to J.J. Abrams' 2009 picture), and asking if we'd see him "in another STAR TREK movie?"

 Without missing a beat, Nimoy replied with the briefest "Umm..." and in no uncertain terms said "We're talking.  We're talking." 

go for it Leonard!  8)
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: feinting goats on April 29, 2012, 01:45:26 PM
Is that Dane Cook as a young Kahn?
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Thrifty on April 29, 2012, 04:39:03 PM
I'm confused.  What is the current prevailing opinion of the 2009 Star Trek movie?  I remember back then that there was some apprehension that it would suck in the months leading up to it.  Then it came out and everyone loved it.  Has it cycled back to the "it's a remake of something classic so it has to suck" status yet?
Title: Re: Star Trek...2013...Yep, it's happening.
Post by: Smith Dr John Smith on April 29, 2012, 05:46:05 PM
I'm confused.  What is the current prevailing opinion of the 2009 Star Trek movie?  I remember back then that there was some apprehension that it would suck in the months leading up to it.  Then it came out and everyone loved it.  Has it cycled back to the "it's a remake of something classic so it has to suck" status yet?

Well most of the reviews have been positive and pretty much everyone I talked to fans and non fans alike liked it.  I even enjoyed it and if you remember I was expecting it to suck.  As far as I can tell most people were all set to hate it but then when they saw that it wasn't undoing the past of Trek and that it was the first piece of Star Trek in about a decade to have a sense of fun and adventure about it they were won other.  I think most people have accepted the fact that the prime universe had become to bloated with back story to make a movie take place in that the average person would enjoy.  I mean I don't know how someone who hadn't watched each and every episode of every Star Trek series would make sense of what was going on in the next gen movies.  I mean they name drop things left and right with out really explaining them and they had to jump through so many hoops to get Worf on board for the last three movies.  I think finding some way to ditch all that backstory was really the only was to go.

I am looking forward to the next movie and I hope Nimoy is in it.