Star Trek 3 news/rumours/casting thread
- Thread starter JWPlatt
- Start date
A re-imagining of the Conscience of the King would be a remarkably boring film.
Who said anything about reimagining an episode? Using a character from a past episode doesn't mean you're simply redoing it.
I'd imagine it more akin to Kodos never losing control of Tarsus IV and becoming more powerful with his own mercenary fleet (mixture of various Trek races). A starship goes missing in the area and puts Kirk in a position of having to rescue the crew and facing his demons.
You're kind of shit out of luck there, the fact they're looking for someone to play the villain kind of makes it clear this movie is "villain-centric." You know, like ten out of the previous twelve Trek movies.
Despite it being the tag line for the franchise, very little exploring actually gets done in Star Trek. The opening of STID was the first time in any of the movies we see any Enterprise do any exploring. The only exploring done in the previous movies was being handled by the Reliant or the Grissom.
As for the shows, TOS and TNG had the Enterprise on some sort of assignment most of the time or getting into some sort of trouble that required them to set any exploration aside. DS9 is about life on a space station and eventually war. Voyager is a ship trying to get home. Enterprise was the first series truly dedicated to exploration, and that eventually got pushed aside in favor of combat against evil aliens. Hell, they even added space marines to the ship's complement.
TOS never went near Earth except in time-travel episodes, but it managed to be pretty exciting. A threat to unseen billions is just as abstract and uninvolving whether they're from Earth or the Rigel Colonies. What makes an action scene exciting is peril to the characters we know and care about, no matter where in the universe they are.
Sure, it's conventional movie-studio wisdom that audiences only respond to danger to Earth, but since when has conventional movie-studio wisdom been right? It's usually just an excuse to avoid doing anything original or fresh.
Because conventional movie-studio wisdom is looking to make back the tens (hundreds) of millions of dollars they sunk into the project. A 24-episode per season television series with limited budget can afford to 'explore' the stories (and other worlds). A once-off summer blockbuster can't.
Ergo: conventional movie-studio wisdom is bang on every time (as disappointing as it may be).
When Vulcan was destroyed, I cared because Spock cared. I was largely focused on Amanda, and when she died I was gutted. Of course, Vulcan is also a very established world to Trek fans, and it would take some doing to get me connected that strongly to a new world. The trick to making an audience care about an alien world is we have to care about an individual character or two.
Also Megan Fox is 28 to Karl Urban's 42. They've been divorced a few years too. I'd really rather McCoy's ex wife be a mature woman close in age to him, not a girl 14 years his junior. She'd look like his daughter.
Also Megan Fox is 28 to Karl Urban's 42. They've been divorced a few years too. I'd really rather McCoy's ex wife be a mature woman close in age to him, not a girl 14 years his junior. She'd look like his daughter.
Jessica Chastain. She's 37, can easily play a Southerner if necessary, can act circles around Megan Fox and, as a bonus, is way better looking.
You're changing the topic. My question isn't about exploration vs. action, it's about the myth that a movie has to imperil Earth to satisfy audiences. There are a lot of successful sci-fi movies that don't endanger Earth. There's this little series called Star Wars that takes place in a whole other galaxy. Then there's Guardians of the Galaxy, which did just fine with Kandar Prime as the imperiled planet. Also Avatar, Alien and Aliens, Pitch Black, etc.
Not necessary. If the Enterprise is violating its orders in a big way in deep space, the UFP president role might be more pronounced. Especially if she sends that other starship after Kirk and crew. And if McCoy's ex-wife is in on it.
First, I'm not changing the topic. I'm not debating whether action is more exciting that exploration. I am -- as the original thesis states -- arguing that 'Earth in peril' sells better (on average) than 'Planet X in peril', particularly for modern audiences. Your counter-examples are largely decades old. I don't think those in today's theatre seats will feel the same way.
GotG is an exception for recent releases, rather than the rule. If ST3 can be done in the same way, more power to it. But the film was goofy, slap-stick, and generally not a serious venture. This means that ST3 must emulate GotG -- the suggestion of which has many on this forum up in arms already.
I'm pretty sure that in Star Wars: The Force Awakens—a movie that will not be decades old until after twenty years from now, and yet which is expected to be released prior to the next Star Trek film—the Earth will not be endangered.
I also expect the Star Wars film to do fairly well financially. Yep, fairly well, at least.
What do you all think?
I also expect the Star Wars film to do fairly well financially. Yep, fairly well, at least.
What do you all think?
Well, there was no Earth in The Phantom Menace and see how terrible it was...
Avatar and Guardians of the Galaxy are not decades old. They are, respectively, from 2009 and 2014. And Avatar is the highest-grossing film of all time.
Which only proves my point -- that it is possible. That success or failure isn't about slavishly following some formula, but about the individual merits of a given film. Even something that nobody expects to succeed can be a success if it's good enough on its own merits. If you want a shot at greatness, you can't be afraid to break the "rules" of conventional wisdom. Films that are made according to cozy, familiar formulas are usually forgettable. The greats are the ones that defy expectations.
Since it is undisputed that Avatar was a film made circa 2178, it largely averages the examples as "several decades early".
I think you all get my point.
We are currently stuck on this planet, and can't go anywhere significant. When we create a fictional world in which humans have expanded outside of our solar system, I would enjoy watching a few stories set in that world that didn't revolve around our solar system.
For heaven's sake, why don't we find out what was going on in the Laurentian system? Seemed important at the time.
Similar threads
