Star Trek Beyond [no colon] (2016, D: Justin Lin)
05-11-14, 06:43 AM
#77
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
At least Shatner had directed a few television episodes. He and Nimoy also had the good fortune of having Bennet on as producer to surround them (Well, Nimoy anyway 
) with top talent and a big budget full of technical pros to compensate for their inexperience. I'm sure Orci will have the same. I'd say to let me do it, but I guaran-damn-tee you that whatever they make will be better than whatever I could do 
.
) with top talent and a big budget full of technical pros to compensate for their inexperience. I'm sure Orci will have the same. I'd say to let me do it, but I guaran-damn-tee you that whatever they make will be better than whatever I could do .
05-12-14, 05:45 AM
#78
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Star Trek 3 (2016)
Star Trek Into Darkness was a horrible mess.
It seems like Abrams was so obsessed with keeping the plot and the inclusion of Khan a secret that he actually made a movie that kept Khan's identity a secret through most of the movie. I swear, the premise of the whole movie that they have Khan in it, but it's a secret. The audience isn't supposed to know. The characters don't know. And then, something like two thirds of the way into the movie, there's this big reveal and it just falls flat on its face. Is there any reason that Kirk or Spock should be impressed that he's some centuries-old dictator the Federation spooks found frozen somewhere out in space? Is an audience, who might be unfamiliar with the character, supposed to be impressed? Watching the movie, you get the sense that Harrison/Khan is supposed to be some of badass evil genius, but he's just an asshole who blows up a building and opens fire in a conference room.
But J.J. is Star Wars' problem now.
It seems like Abrams was so obsessed with keeping the plot and the inclusion of Khan a secret that he actually made a movie that kept Khan's identity a secret through most of the movie. I swear, the premise of the whole movie that they have Khan in it, but it's a secret. The audience isn't supposed to know. The characters don't know. And then, something like two thirds of the way into the movie, there's this big reveal and it just falls flat on its face. Is there any reason that Kirk or Spock should be impressed that he's some centuries-old dictator the Federation spooks found frozen somewhere out in space? Is an audience, who might be unfamiliar with the character, supposed to be impressed? Watching the movie, you get the sense that Harrison/Khan is supposed to be some of badass evil genius, but he's just an asshole who blows up a building and opens fire in a conference room.
But J.J. is Star Wars' problem now.
05-12-14, 08:01 AM
#80
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Star Trek 3 (2016)
The problems with Star Trek V actually have little to do with the direction of the movie (it's not poorly directed). The problems have to do with a screenplay that provided no real ending, and some pretty poor special effects that were delivered when the production decided not to go with ILM.
05-12-14, 09:55 AM
#81
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Star Trek 3 (2016)
I think DeForest Kelly's best performance (at least as Bones McCoy) actually came from STV, the scene were he is confronted by his fathers death is quite powerful, gripping, and very well done.
05-12-14, 12:04 PM
#83
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Formerly known as "Solid Snake PAC"/Denton, Tx
Posts: 39,239
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Re: Star Trek 3 (2016)
I dunno about that.
So did Abrams take you to Hawaii and rape you or what? I don't get all the hate towards him. I wouldn't say that I'd watch an Abrams film cuz he directed/etc it but as a director he's solid. I'm not even a fan of him honestly but coincidentally I do have all his directed films. He makes good stuff.
I barely know anything about him outside his film work but he was big in the TV stuff. That I know.
So did Abrams take you to Hawaii and rape you or what? I don't get all the hate towards him. I wouldn't say that I'd watch an Abrams film cuz he directed/etc it but as a director he's solid. I'm not even a fan of him honestly but coincidentally I do have all his directed films. He makes good stuff.
I barely know anything about him outside his film work but he was big in the TV stuff. That I know.
05-12-14, 12:05 PM
#84
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Star Trek 3 (2016)
I dunno about that.
So did Abrams take you to Hawaii and rape you or what? I don't get all the hate towards him. I wouldn't say that I'd watch an Abrams film cuz he directed/etc it but as a director he's solid. I'm not even a fan of him honestly but coincidentally I do have all his directed films. He makes good stuff.
I barely know anything about him outside his film work but he was big in the TV stuff. That I know.
So did Abrams take you to Hawaii and rape you or what? I don't get all the hate towards him. I wouldn't say that I'd watch an Abrams film cuz he directed/etc it but as a director he's solid. I'm not even a fan of him honestly but coincidentally I do have all his directed films. He makes good stuff.
I barely know anything about him outside his film work but he was big in the TV stuff. That I know.
05-12-14, 12:29 PM
#85
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Star Trek 3 (2016)
Star Trek V is a lot like Rocky V. I can understand it being considered a disappointment when it was released, but it seems a lot less shitty now on home video, sandwiched between two other movies.
As for Into Darkness, I think it's the best Trek film in 22 years. It's got an 87% on Rotten Tomatoes, but on certain corners of the internet, you'd think it's the most hated film ever made.
Not that I think critical consensus means jack these days. Revenge of the Sith has an 80%, which is just fucking depressing.
As for Into Darkness, I think it's the best Trek film in 22 years. It's got an 87% on Rotten Tomatoes, but on certain corners of the internet, you'd think it's the most hated film ever made.
Not that I think critical consensus means jack these days. Revenge of the Sith has an 80%, which is just fucking depressing.
05-12-14, 04:58 PM
#86
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Star Trek 3 (2016)
Most of the critics who liked INTO DARKNESS wouldn't claim to be die hard TREKKIES.
As a mainstream summer popcorn movie, there's nothing wrong with INTO DARKNESS, but as a STAR TREK movie (taking into account the history, canon, and overall themes/ideas that Gene Roddenberry created) it's a huge misfire.
As a mainstream summer popcorn movie, there's nothing wrong with INTO DARKNESS, but as a STAR TREK movie (taking into account the history, canon, and overall themes/ideas that Gene Roddenberry created) it's a huge misfire.
05-12-14, 05:57 PM
#87
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Star Trek 3 (2016)
It feels much more like a Star Trek movie to me than the first one, which had no real themes. It was just about getting the crew together in an origin story, and ripping off Luke Skywalker's destiny as a hero thing from Star Wars. If either of the two Abrams movies is a failure as a Star Trek movie, it's this one, particularly at the end when...
Spoiler:
Into Darkness, on the other hand, deals with precisely the kind of themes I expect from Star Trek...
Spoiler:
The whole story is treated basically as an allegory for modern politics and attitudes toward what we define as terrorism, with the whole thing being a massive grey area morally. The villains at certain points act more sympathetically than the heroes, and while the heroes prevail in the end, the filmmakers consistently comment on and question how they go about doing so.
How this violates what Star Trek is all about, I don't know. Maybe I missed something watching The Original Series, but it seemed to me like it was all about wrapping up serious social themes in a fun adventure show. Into Darkness did that for me, with flying colors. You can maybe argue that it did the job poorly, which I disagree with but consider a valid point of view, but all the complaints I hear about Into Darkness somehow not being a "real" Star Trek movie just fall flat for me.
05-12-14, 08:24 PM
#90
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Star Trek 3 (2016)
It's been awhile since I've seen it, but if I remember correctly, Nero's ship was useless and he was being asked to surrender. He refused, and told Kirk he'd rather die. Kirk's response? "You got it." And off went Spock to carry out the order to kill, and nobody objected. I'm sure I'm getting details wrong, but the point is that Kirk either killed an unarmed and disabled opponent or allowed him to die.
Maybe Kirk said something like, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you," and I just forgot about it. If Batman Begins can get away with bullshit like that, why not Star Trek?
Maybe Kirk said something like, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you," and I just forgot about it. If Batman Begins can get away with bullshit like that, why not Star Trek?
05-13-14, 09:17 AM
#91
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
His ship was crippled, and if his insistence that he didn't want help was true, with the red matter collapsing, it would've destroyed him and Narada anyway, so I'm not entirely sure why they had to fire.
As regards STID, it did hew a little closer in that it at least has some moral underpinnings-the bad guy turns out to have a logical motivation, Kirk, deliberately meant to be on a mission of vengeance, discovers that his own personal feels are clouding his judgement in exactly the way they're intended to, and that he's a pawn in a larger game. But what's really interesting is how it plays with the idea of how fascism grows. "They're coming for us, we have to be ready," and thus Marcus is willing to almost create an enemy to feed the war machine. The film may not milk the idea fully, but it's a nice subtext which gives it a little bit of intelligence.
As regards STID, it did hew a little closer in that it at least has some moral underpinnings-the bad guy turns out to have a logical motivation, Kirk, deliberately meant to be on a mission of vengeance, discovers that his own personal feels are clouding his judgement in exactly the way they're intended to, and that he's a pawn in a larger game. But what's really interesting is how it plays with the idea of how fascism grows. "They're coming for us, we have to be ready," and thus Marcus is willing to almost create an enemy to feed the war machine. The film may not milk the idea fully, but it's a nice subtext which gives it a little bit of intelligence.
05-13-14, 03:36 PM
#92
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Star Trek 3 (2016)
Star Trek Into Darkness was a horrible mess.
It seems like Abrams was so obsessed with keeping the plot and the inclusion of Khan a secret that he actually made a movie that kept Khan's identity a secret through most of the movie. I swear, the premise of the whole movie that they have Khan in it, but it's a secret. The audience isn't supposed to know. The characters don't know. And then, something like two thirds of the way into the movie, there's this big reveal and it just falls flat on its face. Is there any reason that Kirk or Spock should be impressed that he's some centuries-old dictator the Federation spooks found frozen somewhere out in space? Is an audience, who might be unfamiliar with the character, supposed to be impressed? Watching the movie, you get the sense that Harrison/Khan is supposed to be some of badass evil genius, but he's just an asshole who blows up a building and opens fire in a conference room.
But J.J. is Star Wars' problem now.
It seems like Abrams was so obsessed with keeping the plot and the inclusion of Khan a secret that he actually made a movie that kept Khan's identity a secret through most of the movie. I swear, the premise of the whole movie that they have Khan in it, but it's a secret. The audience isn't supposed to know. The characters don't know. And then, something like two thirds of the way into the movie, there's this big reveal and it just falls flat on its face. Is there any reason that Kirk or Spock should be impressed that he's some centuries-old dictator the Federation spooks found frozen somewhere out in space? Is an audience, who might be unfamiliar with the character, supposed to be impressed? Watching the movie, you get the sense that Harrison/Khan is supposed to be some of badass evil genius, but he's just an asshole who blows up a building and opens fire in a conference room.
But J.J. is Star Wars' problem now.
05-13-14, 03:42 PM
#93
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Star Trek 3 (2016)
I hate it when shit like this is historically inaccurate. Been common lately though, STiD last year, Noah this year.
Is it that bad? Oh yeah, this will be on Netflix Streaming come May 17th. For those of us (alright, me) who haven't watched it yet.
Is it that bad? Oh yeah, this will be on Netflix Streaming come May 17th. For those of us (alright, me) who haven't watched it yet.
05-13-14, 03:44 PM
#94
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Star Trek 3 (2016)
Maybe Noah had magic Khan blood and that is the reason he lived like 450 years or something in the Bible?
05-13-14, 05:31 PM
#95
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hail to the Redskins!
Posts: 25,295
Likes: 0
Received 49 Likes
on
38 Posts
Re: Star Trek 3 (2016)
Star Trek Into Darkness was a horrible mess.
It seems like Abrams was so obsessed with keeping the plot and the inclusion of Khan a secret that he actually made a movie that kept Khan's identity a secret through most of the movie. I swear, the premise of the whole movie that they have Khan in it, but it's a secret. The audience isn't supposed to know. The characters don't know. And then, something like two thirds of the way into the movie, there's this big reveal and it just falls flat on its face. Is there any reason that Kirk or Spock should be impressed that he's some centuries-old dictator the Federation spooks found frozen somewhere out in space? Is an audience, who might be unfamiliar with the character, supposed to be impressed? Watching the movie, you get the sense that Harrison/Khan is supposed to be some of badass evil genius, but he's just an asshole who blows up a building and opens fire in a conference room.
But J.J. is Star Wars' problem now.
It seems like Abrams was so obsessed with keeping the plot and the inclusion of Khan a secret that he actually made a movie that kept Khan's identity a secret through most of the movie. I swear, the premise of the whole movie that they have Khan in it, but it's a secret. The audience isn't supposed to know. The characters don't know. And then, something like two thirds of the way into the movie, there's this big reveal and it just falls flat on its face. Is there any reason that Kirk or Spock should be impressed that he's some centuries-old dictator the Federation spooks found frozen somewhere out in space? Is an audience, who might be unfamiliar with the character, supposed to be impressed? Watching the movie, you get the sense that Harrison/Khan is supposed to be some of badass evil genius, but he's just an asshole who blows up a building and opens fire in a conference room.
But J.J. is Star Wars' problem now.
05-13-14, 09:05 PM
#96
Re: Star Trek 3 (2016)
Eh what happened in Star Trek 09 with Nero is no different than how the various death scenes for villains have been for all of the previous ones. Kirk kicking Kruge in the face saying "I have had enough of you" is no different.
No, Into Darkness was a fucking awful Star Trek movie and just a bad movie in general.
No, Into Darkness was a fucking awful Star Trek movie and just a bad movie in general.
05-13-14, 09:33 PM
#97
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Star Trek 3 (2016)
Well, get ready, Robert Orci is going to direct:
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/ro...-3-1201180140/
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/ro...-3-1201180140/
05-13-14, 10:11 PM
#98
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Star Trek 3 (2016)
And this movie is off to a shitty start.
05-13-14, 11:13 PM
#99
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Star Trek 3 (2016)
Describes me perfectly - I've never been a Trek fan, but love the new movies...can't wait for the next one. So, which audience should they go for? I'd think ST fans would be excited about the new movies and their popularity, even if they're more mainstream/generic... compared to the alternative, which is nothing.