Shaka Zulu wrote:
Is that what it takes to get aRisa out of Spock in his middle years?
That 'valve turn-left-goes-slow/turn-right-goes-fast' line makes me think of those two barreled phasers in the Abrams that look like garden hose nozzles. The pain, the pain ...
what I wished I saw in the movie? No point in saying I wished I saw something of the real characters instead of these animated shades, because that is too obvious and also too big of a wish to be granted. But I'd have liked to at least have seen an SF movie with just the slightest bit of credibility in storytelling and/or science. They pile up indignity and stupidity one after the other, till that 'escape the black hole' lunacy that would have hurt my opinion of a good movie but just reconfirmed my feeling about the whole thing with an extra little kick in the ankle about how megadumb this all was.
And of course at least 9000% less lens flare. TMP-level is probably about right, though you could have pushed to DIE HARD 1 level and it might have been beautiful (and actually appropriate instead of becoming willful fetishistic destruction of the filmed image.)
We were lucky enough to get Nimoy, so that's enough for me.
Again I must ask, what would the two of you want as director and writer for the two movies if it wasn't Abrams, Orci & Kurtzman?
I didn't see you ask previously. Part of me would say anybody but Abrams, going by the fact I haven't enjoyed anything he has directed, though I found CLOVERFIELD pretty okay for the single viewing.
Since POTTER #3 (which revived my interest in all things Harry after having all anticipation destroyed by the pedantic first 2 Potter films) and especially CHILDREN OF MEN, I always wish for Cuaron to be involved in anything genre-related (that view might be revised when GRAVITY comes out, but I'm still hoping that it turns out to be as phenomenal as CoM.) He might seem a way-out-of-trek-league choice, but I think he may have talked to the Bond people once, and if that is true, then TREK can't rank TOO much lower.
If you were to go character-oriented rather than SF-oriented, I'd probably go with some totally out-of-the-box choice (and have to lower the budget accordingly.) Just like it was a surprise Dean Parriot could deliver GALAXY QUEST so well, I think somebody like the writer/director of THE STATION AGENT could probably mine the characters effectively.
Those choices are writer-director combos, which outside of Meyer hasn't happened with TREK. Whedon would've been another such choice pre-AVENGERS, especially since FIREFLY seems more TOS-like than any of ModernTrek or the Abrams stuff.
Up until OUT OF TIME I would have put Andrew Niccol up there with Cuaron, but now I am wondering what the guy is smoking, because the promise of GATTACA
and his original draft of THE TRUMAN SHOW
just ain't paying off as of late.
As for director- and writer-for-hire choices, would have to give that a bit more thought. With the inconsistent way credit is awarded for writers, it is always harder and harder to ascertain who wrote what ... look at Logan's record and you can see that while he had a hand in scripting many films, most of his fingerprints were burned off when comparing his work with the actual films, he just often had the 'in' of being first writer aboard, which makes qualifying for credit much easier w/ respect to WGA.