Ditto!
BREAKING: Paramount Sets Top Secret Star Trek Movie For Summer 2023; To Be Produced By J.J. Abrams
- Thread starter PixelMagic
- Start date
- Status
I'm too lazy tbh. I'd like to visit space, but not make my life up there.
The more research I do the more I'm less about that space life.
The Expanse taught me that at least in the near future, working in a spaceship would be shit.
I guess we have different views on what it means to be "grounded".
I thought the JJ movies (and most of what Abrams does) lacks grounding. His ST movies have too much magic. The Enterprise is underwater. You can transport between planets. We're using tribble blood, warping to Vulcan in no time, and on and on.
Before someone responds to this and points out all the "magic" that's been used in ST prior, yes; there's always been "magic" in ST. But with JJ it's too much and too often. In his interpretation of the ST universe there's no rules. It's pure pulp.
In the earlier part of Star Trek Beyond, when we were just hanging out on the Enterprise with our characters and getting a taste of daily life on board the ship, that felt grounded to me. It actually had some verisimilitude.
I like when creators try bring fantasy/science-fiction settings to life and make it feel believable. Which is what Denis did with Dune.
Maybe I need to see this Denis's Dune.
TOS S1 was more naturalistic, showing the crew talking with each other in non-mission settings sometimes.
And, they hired . . . who was it: Rand? Some research company to try to keep themselves grounded in science. Somewhat/sort of.
But Roddenberry had grown up on sci fi lit.
JJ, who certainly has his strengths, wanted to make cool visual spectacles and Star Wars wasn't available.
Things change. Not always for the better. It sounds like I'd like the expanse.
I don't like pew-pew, hyperkinetic, loud.
Be well.
TOS S1 was more naturalistic, showing the crew talking with each other in non-mission settings sometimes.
And, they hired . . . who was it: Rand? Some research company to try to keep themselves grounded in science. Somewhat/sort of.
But Roddenberry had grown up on sci fi lit.
JJ, who certainly has his strengths, wanted to make cool visual spectacles and Star Wars wasn't available.
Things change. Not always for the better. It sounds like I'd like the expanse.
I don't like pew-pew, hyperkinetic, loud.
Be well.
Which is why I like the Kelvin films. They ground enough to draw me in and then explore the possibilities.
They didn't hire RAND, but they did have a small-fee arrangement with one RAND scientist, working on his own time :
Nevertheless, the makers of Star Trek did try to get things largely right and reasonable, starting with the first pilot episode, “The Cage.” Roddenberry contracted with Harvey P. Lynn, Jr., a RAND Corporation physicist, to provide technical advice for a nominal fee. As later documented in a book about making the series, Lynn’s comments were varied and astute. For example, he picked up on one particular line of dialogue from the pilot script: “Any oxygen planets?” the commander asks. In his feedback on the episode Lynn wrote, “Technically, a planet could have oxygen and still be unsuitable to sustain life for many other reasons.” Hence, in the final version an Enterprise underling reports, “Our reading shows an oxygen–nitrogen atmosphere, sir. Heavy with inert elements but well within safety limits.”
The Science Sticklers Who Kept Star Trek in Line - Scientific American
The Scientific American piece refers to Lynn as a physicist, but according to Memory Alpha his training had been in electrical engineering.
Lynn worked primarily on "The Cage," and was replaced as science adviser for most of the regular series eps by Kellam de Forest.
They have it set for December 2023 not summer
Well since then they moved it back to December. They’re taking rogue squadron release date (another movie that’s in what the hell is going on development)Last time I was in the thread, it was Summer. Per the title of the thread.
Into Darkness is the highest grossing Trek film and has an 89% favorable rating from audiences (based on 250,000+ responses) on Rotten Tomatoes. So I'm not sure it "didn't work".
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness
Paramount got gun shy over a few fans calling it the worst Trek movie in some poll and shot themselves in the foot by changing direction.
Paramount are desperate to course-correct Trek into it's blandest possible form. The fandom needs to be a little less "special" whenever their expectations are subverted. Because that's a GOOD thing.
To the surprise of nobody at all, Zach Quinto knows nothing and doubts anything will shoot this year.
Paramount doesn't care about some fan poll at a convention. They only care about money. If they were happy with the numbers STID did, they wouldn't be course correcting.
The film actually did worse in the USA than its predecessor. It did better internationally because Paramount went on an overseas marketing binge that no previous ST film ever had.
You're bringing up the RT ratings without any kind of context. How people feel about a movie can change over time. Some movies don't hold up well. JJ has a way of making movies that people love initially, but tend to have lesser lukewarm feelings on as time passes.
Last edited:
I love Abrams films now more than I did then.
#1 and #3 have only risen in stature in my eyes since they were released. #2 not so much.
No. 2 is my favourite Trek film of all and each time I watch it the gap between it and the next one on my list grows wider.
I love all 3 of them. Each one has a special place in my heart, especially with Kirk and Spock.
- Status
Similar threads
