Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by M.A.C.O., Dec 3, 2013.
Not seeing an issue here...
Sounds totally Canon to me.
We don't know. Abrams simply isn't trusted by some... or many. They believe he lies, disembles and misdirects. Like most of us, he does what is in his own interests and justifies it in terms he knows others will accept. The knowledge of ourselves drives the cynicism toward Abrams. And who's to say that gives us the wrong impression? Or are we to believe Hollywood exists for the fans? Abrams does what Abrams wants - like anyone else - and what's so wrong with pandering, mollifying and prevarication?
Everyone trusts Abrams. That's why he's getting so much work. Have you directed a Star Wars trilogy lately?
As far as we know at this point he's only doing one as opposed to a trilogy.
I see. So Disney must think he's an untrustworthy liar and that's why they only gave him one film to direct instead of three.
I think you are perfectly aware that I wasn't referring to people who are making money with Abrams.
I thought they were doing the Hobbit thing and shooting the 3 movies all at once and releasing them a year apart after doing the Special Effects.
All I'm perfectly aware of is that you diss on Abrams just for the sake of dissing, and I don't take anything you say seriously, and I just enjoy replying to your inane "everyone hates Abrams" posts.
No, the plan is to release them every two years with a side-story released in the in-between years. Each movie in the trilogy itself will be filmed individually.
I'm pretty sure I haven't said that. I've explained why cynics might. Besides, I don't think that generalization is any different than "Everyone trusts Abrams."
Not me. HATED Into Darkness. It was just bad writing, bad acting and recycled plot. Even if it was done in the opposite way, meaning Kirk died instead of Spock. It just felt like crap. Period. I have NO interest in seeing a third film. Let alone another one by him.
Don't envy any Star Wars fans. I hope he doesn't screw that up as well.
Recently I've seen Mission Impossible 4 and was surprised how good it was compared to the utter crapfest that was Mission Impossible 3. So no hopes for Star Wars, but hopes for Star Trek, now that Abrams is gone.
Someone made a comparison to another director saying that he was more of an indulgent director than an objective one. I think the same applies to JJ.
I hope Kasdan ( and Lucas if he's even still involved ) can rein him in if it turns out that his script is full of problems. Then again I have a very particular horse in this race that I don't want to see messed up.
Please enlighten us as to how the new movie was 'recycled'?
Match the story to the title:
"An evil villain from another time is out for revenge."
Is it "Star Trek" (2009) or "Star Trek Into Darkness?"
That could be used to describe hundreds of novels, poems, and films.
You've reduced things to such a basic level that you could do the same for just about anything:
"All glass is recycled thanks to eons of erosion and decay."
While true, when someone calls something "recycled glass," it's pretty clear what he is implying.
I really didn't see Khan as out for revenge though? He seemed more interested in recovering his people. At least that was my interpretation of events. YMMV.
Pretty much. Khan/Harrison wanted his people to be recovered, but he also wanted revenge on Marcus and Starfleet/Earth afterward, so he staged the crash of the ship into the city.
Separate names with a comma.