Star Trek movie 2012
#1
Posted 16 June 2011 - 08:46 AM
#2
Posted 16 June 2011 - 08:58 AM
I'll be there for sure to see the new film, but in the meantime I'll have plenty of other stuff to do as well!
#3
Posted 16 June 2011 - 04:13 PM
#4
Posted 25 June 2011 - 04:36 AM
I think it's also odd given that we know they signed originally for a 3-movie deal and there seems to have been no forward planning as to how a trilogy of movies might pan out. It's like they threw every creative effort into the first movie with some quite bold steps and then have lost their way with regards as to where to go next.
Even stranger is that I simply haven't witnessed anything like the excitement amongst the fanbase for the new movie. The forum over at TU is practically dead and no one really seems to be talking about the next film, or even showing any excitement over it. I don't think Bad Robot can really afford to lose momentum like this, given that other big franchises are having their moments.
Star Trek - although successful commercially - was not THE film of 2009, and I feel that in the intervening time, other franchises have gone from strength-to-strength. The new Batman movie is generating HUGE excitement, and even dumb franchises like Transformers are pushing product out there; by comparison Bad Robot's approach to the next Trek movie seems woefully casual.
I get it that Abrams has other fish to fry, but it strikes me that this project is the Cinderella of them all. Any talk at all of the new movie tends to be amongst long-term fans exchanging their dull aspirations for the new movie to have Klingons, Khan, or the Borg in it, whilst others (like me) wonder whether the writers will be creative enough to really work with their gimmick of an alternate timeline or simply make their own versions of the previous TOS movies.
#5
Posted 25 June 2011 - 12:11 PM
#6
Posted 25 June 2011 - 05:09 PM
#7
Posted 08 July 2011 - 03:15 PM
While there's no official delay announcement, I fully suspect that one will be forthcoming; Paramount is just prolonging the inevitable bad news. If you think about it, that makes a bit of sense, Paramount probably wants to be able to announce the "new" release date when they announce the delay. (A delay without a release date is only going to annoy people.)
I'm going to be blunt: Paramount dropped the ball on this one from day one. Trek XI was ready in time for its original December 2008 release date
#8
Posted 08 July 2011 - 04:47 PM
#9
Posted 10 July 2011 - 07:53 PM
I agree totally! I'll be very disappointed if they push this to a "holiday" release. It absolutely must be a summer film. If they need to push it to summer 2013 to give them time to do it well, then so be it.
#10
Posted 11 July 2011 - 03:57 AM
I have to say I agree with sybeck1 and Jules a bit. I'm no fan of the reboot universe either, but I'd like to see something more original, and not just a mashup of previous TOS. Though I only warmly received the 2009 film, I have to agree that it did well, and they seem like they are losing momentum by waiting 3 years between films, let alone 4!
I'm concerned that Abrams isn't really excited to do Star Trek, and has kind of just ignored it the way a school kid ignores homework he doesn't want to do.
#11
Posted 11 July 2011 - 06:00 AM
#12
Posted 11 July 2011 - 10:25 AM
I do wish Trek every success in the future, but I think I'm content to stay in the TOS/TNG/DS9 timeframe. Maybe this lack of buzz means that I'm not so deep in the minority as I thought I was.
#13
Posted 11 July 2011 - 08:14 PM
I guess, some think ENT lost its way at the end, but I actually thought Season 4 was some of the best star trek ever!
Manny Coto really understood and got star trek IMO. The way he weaved in subtle and not so subtle nods to the original, running small 2 and 3 episodes serials... Manny should have been handed the reigns, and I think someone mentioned in another thread that Manny would pick up after the destruction of Romulas, another 100 or so years in to the future.
I've been re-watching TNG lately, and while I still personally like DS9 the best of all the series, TNG is probably hands down the best and more commercially viable property still to this day. TOS has a bit of "camp" factor, that TNG managed to get past IMO.
#14
Posted 12 July 2011 - 03:59 AM
worldwide, the gross was $385,680,446
compare that to something like Thor, which had a worldwide gross of $443,739,971, and is still pulling in some cash... it will easily generate a 100mil more than start trek, so I dunno... maybe 385mil just isnt enough any more?!
Seriously though, I think people are correct when they say paramount has dropped the ball here. The move did do well, and Disney has already announced "Thor 2" for the summer of 2013. Just 2 years apart.
#15
Posted 12 July 2011 - 06:47 AM
#16
Posted 13 July 2011 - 05:18 AM
I do wish Trek every success in the future, but I think I'm content to stay in the TOS/TNG/DS9 timeframe. Maybe this lack of buzz means that I'm not so deep in the minority as I thought I was.
I actually think this sums up the way a lot of Trek fans feel, especially now that - for whatever reason - Paramount has simply not been able to keep the momentum going after the success of the first Abrams movie. I sensing a lot of indifference to the franchise and the potential run of new movies from fans and the general public alike. I don't know why this should be - but they're not even talking about it over at TU where prior to the release of the last movie, the board was lit-up with spirited fights and really very intense discussions which included a mix of excitement and misgivings - but all put forward with a passion that simply doesn't seem to be there anymore.
It's almost as though the movie fell between two stalls: it confused the hardcore fans with it's bold new timeline that sacrificed a few sacred cows so that no one really knows where it can go next and fears the possibility that it will just be a redux of old TOS movies with the most successful alien adversaries (such as the Borg and the Klingons) thrown randomly in, or that it was just one of 2009's big movies which was no better or no worse than those put forward by the other big franchises: basically a disposable commodity for a fickle audience and last year's big thing - which to be honest was what a lot of us feared in the beginning.
Where we all ought to be now is reviewing the second Abrams' movie and listening out for plans for a third! I like the analogy of Abrams appearing to regard this franchise as homework he doesn't want to do - because that's exactly how this looks and feels. The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise went with the flow and filmed sequels back-to-back. Everyone is excited about Nolan's third outing for his dark vision of the Batman franchise - and somehow Abrams' Star Trek which ought to be tapping into the kind of audience that would go back and back to watch a steady stream of POTC or Harry Potter, isn't doing that. It seems that Paramount have almost wilfully failed to seize the moment and letting any enthusiasm we might have had for a second helping of Pine et al slip by unnoticed and unsatisfied.
My sense is that the appetite is for the big franchises who can deliver proper adult darkness - that's where all the anticipation seems to be, and where the big stars are being attracted in. Here Star Trek seems to fall between two stalls because Abrams made the franchise big and breezy, but it was not quite "big" enough nor dark enough to be a contender with the HP or Batman, whilst failing to satisfy the fans of the more garish, breezy, and basically childish franchises that specialise in making spectacular but ulitmately dumb movies - which is Michael Bay territory.
I think Star Trek basically missed it's mark and didn't really properly capture the imgaination of the fans and the general public who all went along to see it out of curiosity. Everyone enjoyed the movie, but it wasn't resonating deeply enough with anyone, and the movie just didn't have that big emotional pull or an obvious sequel to leave the audience wanting more or to know what happens next. The "back to basics" approach wasn't thorough enough because there is carry-over baggage from the old timeline and a whole bunch of fans who still prefer the Prime Universe Trek because the Abramsverse doesn't offer enough that is different.
Some of the faults of the past Star Trek movies were repeated: although this past movie was pacier than TOS:TMP - still far too much time and effort went into reintroducing the characters in their new guises hence it's a long time before we get into the main story, and after the lesson that ought to have been learned from Nem, there was still a villain at the centre of an unintelligible plot hole, although this time a less interesting villain. At least one could extrapolate Shinzon's motives with one eye on Dillard's novelisation and a bit of thought, but no one has been able to satisfactorily explain why Nero waits 25 years before exacting his revenge! And, worse than that, I simply didn't care about Nero and his dead wife, or to find out why he waits 25 years! There was no issue like this with Khan, and even Amanda's death was a kind of "so what?" scenario when it ought to have been emotional - but she was hardly on-screen long enough to make us care given that so many of Spock's early life scenes were cut out. Ditto Kirk's silly wailing mother - another stupid, misfire of a scene which carried no emotional force whatsoever given that we hardly knew the woman or Kirk's father.
In many ways, Abrams' movie got such a lot right: the new cast is promising and certainly some of that gung-ho TOS spirit was there, but those other elements, the deeper intellectual, moral, and spiritual resonances that so many fans began to grumble about in Berman Trek because they overshadowed the adventure, while almost completely absent from what we have seen so far of Abramsverse, appear to be what is needed back in Star trek to make people care about really care about it.
You can have both adventure and real depth in a sci-fi franchise: Michael Moore has proven that twice with DS9 (the most groundbreaking and evolved of the Treks IMO) and NuBSG. Nolan has put action and moral jeopardy on the big screen. It can be done, but J J Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman are not the guys to inject excitement and longing back into the franchise. They can make successful blockbusters, yes, but at the moment, Star Trek looks like a reanimated corpse that's been left lying neglected in a cellar.
#17
Posted 13 July 2011 - 03:00 PM
I think this quote sums up much of my feelings about it.
#18
Posted 13 July 2011 - 04:15 PM
LOL those that hated it before, still hate it. Those that liked the idea before, for the most part, still like it. Each can go on endlessly nither changing a single mind to the other side.
My take on it, they know they have the money, they know they have the actors, they know they are going to do it and absence is not a bad thing. Star Wars movies came out how often? They don't mind it laying low for awhile and they know, that soon as those first few "slipped" yeah right slipped, photos hit the internet, the buzz starts again.
I have not seen ANY Trek film as enjoyed by people in my son and daughters age range as this last one. My son hosted a ST XI party and packed my house and up until that last movie HATED, did I put the word HATED, yes I guess that I did, but trust me it's not a strong enough word for it ALL and to quote my son "boring, slow, blah blah blah, talk talk talk, show"
Yes you are not 20 and it's not your Trek, but it is the same thing I heard when TNG came out............... Real Trek is died........... This is carp........... We will never get our show based on Sulu......... well, they were right about that last one.
Oh don't bother, you won't change my mind either
#19
Posted 13 July 2011 - 05:01 PM
I missed that FHC!
#20
Posted 13 July 2011 - 05:50 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users