#BringinRiker

[Cyke101]

I think Ryan8bit misspoke, but we'd have to factor in that the ST09 was essentially an origin story, and very specifically set a few years chronologically before TOS (2258 vs. 2265), so the characters -- and thus the actors -- are going to be slightly younger. Or, if you want to consider the Cage in 2254, then the two Spocks more or less line up (except Spock is a Commander in the reboot and Lt. in the Cage).

 

[Admiral Bear]

I think Ryan8bit misspoke, but we'd have to factor in that the ST09 was essentially an origin story, and very specifically set a few years chronologically before TOS (2258 vs. 2265), so the characters -- and thus the actors -- are going to be slightly younger. Or, if you want to consider the Cage in 2254, then the two Spocks more or less line up (except Spock is a Commander in the reboot and Lt. in the Cage).

They're still too young.

I will admit to having issues with the fact that Pine's Kirk has gone straight from graduating Starfleet Academy to Enterprise Captain, especially given all the knowledge of Shatner Kirk's pre Enterprise Starfleet career. For me, Pine's Kirk just shouldn't be where he is after one movie, and that's probably the one error of judgement that Abrams made with the 2009 script. . .Having Kirk as a cadet, and without any considerable passage of time, being straight aboard the Enterprise. Yes, I know it's a different timeline, but that doesn't mean it all has to wash with me.

 

[thumbtack]

the contractual obligations of all those concerned

There was no contractual obligation to make a sequel. There is no contractual obligation to make another sequel. Which is why a few had hoped it really had been cancelled.

 

[Ryan8bit]

I think Ryan8bit misspoke

Yeah, I might have phrased it poorly. Pine& Quinto now are pretty much the same ages as Shatner & Nimoy were in 1966. They're really not that young, regardless of how their characters are portrayed.

 

[Greg Cox]

and the next movie already looking a mess,

It's way too early to be making any reliable judgments about that.

Granted, this is the internet, where upcoming films are routinely pronounced disasters before a single frame is shot, or on the basis of a single leaked spy photo or anonymous rumor, but, seriously, the next movie is barely a work-in-progress at this point.

They haven't started filming yet, they haven't selected a director yet, the script is surely still being worked on, and not a single guest-actor has been cast . . . so clearly the movie is already "looking a mess."

Sure, they're still trying to get their ducks in a row, and there's been a few bumps and course corrections along the way, but that's hardly unusual where any creative project is concerned, especially in early days.

In fact, I seem to remember a certain 60s space opera in which they ended up scrapping the original pilot and pretty much recasting the whole thing before it hit the air . . . .

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yeah, this is the Internet, where everyone's an expert on everything.

In fact, I seem to remember a certain 60s space opera in which they ended up scrapping the original pilot and pretty much recasting the whole thing before it hit the air . . . .

 

[bbailey861]

2016 should be a global celebration for Star Trek and it's fans, but with no TV Trek for over 10 years, and the next movie already looking a mess, I fear it'll pass with little more than a whimper.

Then maybe you should walk away now and not look back lest you become bitterly disappointed.

 

[Cyke101]

2016 should be a global celebration for Star Trek and it's fans, but with no TV Trek for over 10 years, and the next movie already looking a mess, I fear it'll pass with little more than a whimper.

Then maybe you should walk away now and not look back lest you become bitterly disappointed.

The rest of us can probably party. Even without a movie, there's no way Paramount isn't going to try to milk an anniversary of one of their tentpole franchises, which means there's probably going to be no shortage of Trek-related things to enjoy.

Hey, maybe we should try to petition Frakes to make a 2 hour comedy about behind-the-scenes Trek. The plot could involve a number of former TV castmembers -- Frakes included -- trying to get a part in the new movie. We could call it The Five-ish Star Treks. #BringinRiker!

(in all honesty, I'd pay good money to watch Frakes and Abrams in a skit together, even though Abrams left)

 

[BeatleJWOL]

They're still too young.

Perhaps this is more a reflection of the observer rather than the observed

 

[CorporalClegg]

I thought you were shitting me, and you are.

8-bit said "IS". Present tense. Read better.

Pine is now 34 and Quinto is 37.

And, since Trek 13 will take place near the beginning of the five year mission, his point is still valid.

Sorry.

 

[JarodRussell]

Reality check: next year, Johnathan Frakes will have directed First Contact 20 (TWENTY) years ago. Ain't that grammar blowing your minds? The majority of nuTrek's target audience wasn't even born at that point.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Oh God no! The bullshit stop-and-go way he treated the TOS Battlestar Galactica property for years makes me recoil at the mere mention of his name.

How badly did he treat BSG-TOS? Not at all, sir; he was going to make the movie, but then 9/11 happened, and then he couldn't make it at all due to the disruption it caused. I don't see how he 'screwed' over anything connected with BSG (the fans of the original series still love him over Moore, and want him to do a BSG movie, so I've read.)

And if people think Insurrection disqualifies Frakes for the job, I think the shitfest that was Superman Returns equally disqualifies Singer. I suppose I shouldn't worry, as he never really makes good on many things he says he wants to do, but still no. Just flipping NO!

Frakes needed a good script, which he didn't get thanks to B&B doing the same thing they usually do.With regards to Star Trek, Frakes needs to do something else, as somebody here has said; he's not getting any younger (late '50's-early '60's) and time waits for no one.

As for the 'shitfest that was Superman Returns', here's a debunking of that meme:

PERCEPTION: Superman Returns was a flop.

REALITY: Most estimates put the cost of this film at $270 million. That number actually includes the cost of several previous, unrelated, failed attempts to make a new Superman movie and doesn't really reflect the actual cost of Superman Returns. Even if it did, Superman Returns made $391 million worldwide. That's even more than Batman Begins, totaling only $371 million in box office receipts worldwide. Yet Batman Begins is widely considered to be the more successful movie, so successful in fact that it spawned an entire series of even more successful sequels while Superman was abandoned to be completely rebooted years later.

The only reason people hate Superman Returns is because it was seen as a throwback by younger viewers (it's part of the Donnerverse, and was seen as a love letter to it) and because many felt that Brandon Routh looked 'effeminate' (gay) and that he didn't kick enough ass as Superman (although many are now strangely nostalgic for Superman Returns and love it over Man Of Steel!)

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Reality check: next year, Johnathan Frakes will have directed First Contact 20 (TWENTY) years ago. Ain't that grammar blowing your minds? The majority of nuTrek's target audience wasn't even born at that point.

I'm pretty sure more people who attended ST09's theater run were 16-and-over than 15-and-under, in case you were somehow being serious there. I was 21, and I saw it thrice and in three separate states for that matter, and I can tell you the bulk of the folks I saw filling seats were at least my age.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Oh God no! The bullshit stop-and-go way he treated the TOS Battlestar Galactica property for years makes me recoil at the mere mention of his name.

How badly did he treat BSG-TOS? Not at all, sir; he was going to make the movie, but then 9/11 happened, and then he couldn't make it at all due to the disruption it caused. I don't see how he 'screwed' over anything connected with BSG (the fans of the original series still love him over Moore, and want him to do a BSG movie, so I've read.)

What you've read is 13 years out of date. Granted the whole 9/11 thing was totally out of his control, but he's had 2 additional false starts since then, each time getting the fans worked up into a frenzy of apprehension, only to have the rug pulled out when he went off to do something else. X-men was also somewhat understandable, but the most recent one a couple years back was when he decided to shelf BSG for a remake of the Munsters! The Munsters?! WTF?? What made matters even worse, is that project failed and he never even tried to go back to BSG. Have no idea what he tried to work on after that and I absolutely don't care. The soil has been salted way too many times...

So no, sir, I want him to have nothing to do with anything BSG, or Trek for the same reason. Just can't ever again take him seriously. It's pretty much accepted in the BSG community that Tom DeSanto was more of a stable-headed driving force behind the 2000 continuation effort anyway. And as an "original fan" myself, I'll take RDM's version over Singer's any day. At least RDM got it done. He couldn't please everyone in the end, but we at least got something.

I suppose I really shouldn't worry, though, as history has demonstrated that Singer will always choose some other shiny bauble of a project and drop the ball again. Whenever his name comes up with anything remotely interesting, however, I always suffer from a twitch of involuntary apoplexy.

 

[Harvey]

Frakes needed a good script, which he didn't get thanks to B&B doing the same thing they usually do.With regards to Star Trek, Frakes needs to do something else, as somebody here has said; he's not getting any younger (late '50's-early '60's) and time waits for no one.

Michael Piller wrote the script and Brannon Braga had nothing to do with the movie (in regards to Star Trek: Insurrection).

 

[Shaka Zulu]

All the mystery of "The Matrix" universe was undone with the prequels - I mean the sequels!

What 'mystery' was undone? Whatever's in the sequels was already explained in the first movie and The Animatrix. The only reason people didn't like the sequels is because of the unhappy ending in the third one, but not all stories have to have a happy ending.

Michael Piller wrote the script and Brannon Braga had nothing to do with the movie (in regards to Star Trek: Insurrection).

Thanks for the heads-up on that one.

 

[Makarov]

The first Matrix left a lot to the imagination. The sequels took away the mystery of Zion for one thing, turned it into a rave club with council meetings. There's a lot that people didn't like about the sequels - tons of bad dialogue compared to the first movie. The much mocked architect scene comes to mind.

Basically the Matrix sequels took the Matrix which was definitely thought of as groundbreaking masterpiece at the time, and turned the general public towards thinking of it as a flop. It really hurts the first movie.

 

[Amaris]

The Matrix is like Twinkies, to me. It's filled with goodness that makes you feel energized and upbeat. It's a fun movie with awesome visuals and groundbreaking technical effects, along with a story we can all get behind: mankind is the underdog against the unblinking, inexhaustible onslaught of artificial intelligence.

One pack of Twinkies is satisfying, and more than enough to sate that craving. Eating another pack of Twinkies is a bit different: they still taste good, but that same energizing effect is no longer there. In fact, all the artificial sweetness is starting to weigh on your stomach just a bit. Then you open a third pack of Twinkies, and there's no savoring, it's just the desire to finish it so you can be done with them. Your stomach is bloated, and heavy, and you start to feel tired of the whole business.

That sums up the Matrix trilogy for me.

 

[Karzak]

The Verge is reporting Justin Lin got the gig.

The director behind Fast & Furious 6 will take on Star Trek 3

 

[Cyke101]

because many felt that Brandon Routh looked 'effeminate' (gay) and that he didn't kick enough ass as Superman (although many are now strangely nostalgic for Superman Returns and love it over Man Of Steel!)

I've honestly never heard this complaint about Routh in Superman Returns, but then again, if Christopher Reeve were alive and the same age and shape today as the 1978 movie, he would've been passed up for being not gigantic enough like your Cavills, Jackmen, Hardiess, Hemsworths, and Evanses.