Abrams Commits To Direct

[MacLeod]

I'd rather wait for a good film, rather than have a film rushed out. Besides even if it comes out in 2012, we might have to wait until 2016 for the next film.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I have never met anyone in real life who didn't love that sequence.

Pretty much, yeah.

Of course, IRL none of the friends I see movies with and only a couple of family members are trekkies.

 

[Sean Aaron]

just because TNG threw around terms like "tachyon" and "polarity" and "chronotons" doesn't mean it was scientific, it just meant the writers cribbed some terms from a physics textbook, or made up something that sounded "sciency"

Actually they did consult with scientists on the show from time to time so no need to run too far in the opposite direction.

It is just a tv show, though...

 

[Gojira]

Oh, the "vaccination reaction" with Kirk's hands.

I thought the gag alone was just kind of funny - Bones's attitude and dialogue made the scene one of my favorites, though.

HATED IT. Just can't say it enough. When it happened I literally cringed, dunked down afraid all my friends I bribed to the movie were going to be laughing at me.

It was funny without being campy and it was a nice contrast to the excitement of the moment of Kirk trying to confirm that Vulcan was under attack.

 

[Sean Aaron]

Oh, the "vaccination reaction" with Kirk's hands.

I thought the gag alone was just kind of funny - Bones's attitude and dialogue made the scene one of my favorites, though.

HATED IT. Just can't say it enough. When it happened I literally cringed, dunked down afraid all my friends I bribed to the movie were going to be laughing at me.

It was funny without being campy and it was a nice contrast to the excitement of the moment of Kirk trying to confirm that Vulcan was under attack.

I also thought that sequence was pretty funny and well-paced.

 

[Ryan8bit]

just because TNG threw around terms like "tachyon" and "polarity" and "chronotons" doesn't mean it was scientific, it just meant the writers cribbed some terms from a physics textbook, or made up something that sounded "sciency"

Actually they did consult with scientists on the show from time to time so no need to run too far in the opposite direction.

It is just a tv show, though...

And they supposedly had a consultant for this movie too. In a couple areas she either didn't do her job or the writers just ignored her.

If your question is meant to be "what's the difference in the rate of supply of new product between failure and success" then the answer is: you're getting a new movie, period. Failure = no new Trek, at all.

I think his point was that Nemesis and Enterprise were a failure, meaning that success can come at any moment. If JJ's trek had failed, there would be someone else there to try. It wouldn't just go away forever.

 

[SPCTRE]

I am glad JJ's back to direct. Really looking forward to this movie.

This.

 

[Garak]

Hopefully JJ brings his up tempo, distinct style back in full force and we're treated to the adventure of a lifetime that will further make us forget how bland and boring the old Trek was in comparison.

Your join date is 2004. What the hell have you been doing here?

Waiting for better Trek. What have you been doing here aside from asking silly questions?

 

[Nerys Myk]

And they supposedly had a consultant for this movie too. In a couple areas she either didn't do her job or the writers just ignored her.
.

That's why they're called "consultants". Their suggestions/advice can be ingored if it interfers with the story or the visual drama. Thats true of pretty much any movie, be it a biopic or a SF action blockbuster.

 

[Agenda]

Red Matter is no more ridonkulous than the Genesis Device. Neither is travelling through time through a black hole. In fact, if anything, these things are more realistic.

 

[I Grok Spock]

I have never met anyone in real life who didn't love that sequence.

Yep.

When that scene happened, the audience roared with laughter in every instance that I saw the movie.

Yep².

 

[thumbtack]

It wouldn't just go away forever.

Are you seriously suggesting that they would just keep cranking them out until something finally hit? Really? Name one franchise that has been that forgiving.

 

[M'Sharak]

And they supposedly had a consultant for this movie too. In a couple areas she either didn't do her job or the writers just ignored her.
.

That's why they're called "consultants". Their suggestions/advice can be ingored if it interfers with the story or the visual drama. Thats true of pretty much any movie, be it a biopic or a SF action blockbuster.

Copy/pasting from something I posted a couple of years ago concerning the same question:

Carolyn Porco was consulted mainly concerning the Titan scene (the original idea had been to do it quite differently, and the change to having the Enterprise warp into Titan's atmosphere was done at her suggestion, iirc.) The filmmakers still decided to do certain things for dramatic or visual effect (the position of Saturn's rings in the background as Enterprise rises out of the mist is one example, even though they should have been nearly edge-on when viewed from Titan.) Porco acknowledged on her Cassini website that sometimes artistic choice trumps scientific accuracy in the interest of telling a story. That's showbiz, as they say.

 

[Jon1701]

There was 4 years between Back to the Future and parts II & III.

Seemed to work out okay.

that's because they were making parts two and three together and releasing them back to back.

They could've done it in 1986. There wasn't any need to wait 4 years. In the BttF timeline it all takes place the same week.

1.21 Jigawatts!

 

[Jon1701]

wow, a potential four and a half year gap between movies is just ridiculous

There was 4 years between Back to the Future and parts II & III.

Seemed to work out okay.

that's because they were making parts two and three together and releasing them back to back.

After it was a hit, Zemeckis intended to make a sequel but got delayed making "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" and they had to push it back.

Hmmm...Where I have I heard that before?

 

[Ryan8bit]

It wouldn't just go away forever.

Are you seriously suggesting that they would just keep cranking them out until something finally hit? Really? Name one franchise that has been that forgiving.

Aliens/Predator? Incredible Hulk? Terminator?

History is littered with people making mediocre reboots/sequels in an effort to profit off of earlier success. While a failure or a few failures have the potential to slow things down, they can't completely halt a franchise forever.

Red Matter is no more ridonkulous than the Genesis Device. Neither is travelling through time through a black hole. In fact, if anything, these things are more realistic.

I don't really care about Red Matter or the Genesis Device. They're plainly in the realm of fiction. What doesn't make sense is when they take something that is real science and they mess it up. This has happened often throughout Star Trek, just probably not as much in one outing.

 

[thumbtack]

Aliens/Predator? Incredible Hulk? Terminator?

I don't understand. Which of those franchises had four consecutive failures and was permitted to continue?

 

[Ryan8bit]

Aliens/Predator? Incredible Hulk? Terminator?

I don't understand. Which of those franchises had four consecutive failures and was permitted to continue?

You're going to have to define failure first, and what you're counting as the initial three. If it's Insurrection/Enterprise/Nemesis, then by those standards, every movie after Aliens was a failure, which would be four movies, and they've greenlit a fifth now. Regardless of how Prometheus does, I can guarantee there will be another Alien movie of some sort. Terminator is the same way. With incredible failures both in film and on TV, they're still talking about making a fifth movie. It may take time, but it will happen.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Yes, but what color are the fucking warp nacelles going to be?!?

Dammit.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Mauve.