What you DON'T want to see in Star Trek 3
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
50th Anniversary is bound to have either Shatner or Nimoy. It's almost a given.
The rub is, if a story was done based on a novel like The Galactic Whirlpool, or like the first motion picture, people like you would be hating it to bits and saying that it's boring. Let's face facts and say that you just don't like the current group of creators of Star Trek, and no matter what they do, you'll not be pleased.
Because it was wise the first time and because it needs to be said, again due to people being forgetful:
Where does all of this bullshit about Star Trek being completely cerebral come from? And when are people going to stop repeating this bullshit?
Last edited by a moderator:
Um, nope
serenitytrek1
Commander
I seriously doubt that, please don't confirm society's worst stereotypes of how trek fans are geeks and nerds who cant get a girl.
when we all know that is completely not true.
I can't speak for all fans, but it's definitely true of me
Whilst they're cool and all, please stop with the super-ships and super-entities.
A good old fashioned exploration adventure mixed up with a conventional war would be what I'd like (with both stories coming together through some intelligent plot device).
A good old fashioned exploration adventure mixed up with a conventional war would be what I'd like (with both stories coming together through some intelligent plot device).
That would be perfect - and would satisfy a lot of the different Trek 'factions' methinks
I imagine some fans are gay and some don't actively go looking for companionship.
Where does all of this bullshit about Star Trek being completely cerebral come from? And when are people going to stop repeating this bullshit?
Mostly fans with rose colored glasses who remember the show from their childhood very fondly.
I mean Trek has had some amazing episodes and films, very thoughtful, well written, and well performed. But I never saw an episode that actually taught me anything or changed my mind about a subject. I never saw an episode that really made me think.
Even when I was a kid and my friends and I would play Star Trek we wouldn't spend time sitting around a picnic table discussing a moral dilemma we'd have super cool phaser fights or launch some torpedoes back and forth.
Personally I dig the spite of J. Allen's post because people won't stop trying to hit us over the head saying Trek was this super mind enhancing experience that has been ruined by modern CGI and a faster pace.
I can't comment on the Galactic Whirlpool, since I haven't read it, but TMP is in no way cerebral beyond the concepts involved. It's a movie with a barebones script and padded out by long VFX shots. Of course it's boring. But it's disingenuous to say that I don't like the current group of Trek creators - I really liked the first movie, in spite of some utterly stupid decisions they made. I just really hate Lindelof, because every single thing he touches turns to shit because he likes sticking things in for the cool factor and not for any real story purpose.
The rub is, if a story was done based on a novel like The Galactic Whirlpool, or like the first motion picture, people like you would be hating it to bits and saying that it's boring. Let's face facts and say that you just don't like the current group of creators of Star Trek, and no matter what they do, you'll not be pleased.
Anyway, you can do smart scifi with a handful of fight scenes between characters or spaceships (and no, that doesn't equal "A FUCK TON of Pew!Pew!" - you want that, watch a Star Wars prequel). It's just a matter of coming up with the right story and making everything cohere properly.
Star Trek is adventure. And politics. And comedy, and romance, and war, and action, etc, etc. It cannot be static an it cannot conform to any one of our preconceived notions as to what it should be. Star Trek is a show about all the above set in the 23rd century on a ship named Enterprise.
I consider Into Darkness a well written film that is certainly the best Trek film put out so far. Did it have problems? Of course, EVERY movie has problems but it didn't matter. It was special to me because it was Star Trek. The fact that we have people who are taking such good care of it shows that we are indeed blessed and are in for a treat come 2016.
What don't I want to see? I don't know. I don't want to see it return to the bland era of the late nineties again. I want it to be as bright and fast and fun as it has been.
Those four men, Abrams, Lindelof, Orci, and Kurtzman have given us our Trek back in spades. Both movies were love letters to us and gave the general audience a true taste of what we have been enjoying.
Trek is back baby.
I consider Into Darkness a well written film that is certainly the best Trek film put out so far. Did it have problems? Of course, EVERY movie has problems but it didn't matter. It was special to me because it was Star Trek. The fact that we have people who are taking such good care of it shows that we are indeed blessed and are in for a treat come 2016.
What don't I want to see? I don't know. I don't want to see it return to the bland era of the late nineties again. I want it to be as bright and fast and fun as it has been.
Those four men, Abrams, Lindelof, Orci, and Kurtzman have given us our Trek back in spades. Both movies were love letters to us and gave the general audience a true taste of what we have been enjoying.
Trek is back baby.
P.S.: Just a couple months ago quite a few people wanted the Borg. Now all of a sudden nobody wants them. Moving goalposts much?
I still am in the Kirk vs. the Borg camp! Short of that, I'd like a time-travel flick set during the Eugenics Wars with Kirk taking on Khan on his home-field.
Don't want: soap-opera explorations of "relationships". Spock and Uhura are a couple? Fine. But don't make it the central theme of the film. Same goes for Kirk/Marcus, if they go the couple route.
Don't want: lengthy exposition by characters to explain things that should be left for the viewers to work out on their own (for example, if it appears a great distance has been travelled in a short time span, the default assumption should be that nothing important happened in the interim and not "we didn't see every parsec of space that was traversed between the two scenes--why don't they respect speed limits"). I do NOT want some character to then launch into a speech about all the neat things they did in the interim, to explain away the passage of time.
Don't want: any hint, however remote, that this new timeline will be "fixed" in order to merge back to the TOS timeline. Just…no.
Don't want: serious reduction in screen time for Kirk or Spock in order to have a more "ensemble" feel to the film. Kirk and Spock are essential. The other "five" are important but not at the expense of Kirk and Spock.
Don't want: lengthy exposition by characters to explain things that should be left for the viewers to work out on their own (for example, if it appears a great distance has been travelled in a short time span, the default assumption should be that nothing important happened in the interim and not "we didn't see every parsec of space that was traversed between the two scenes--why don't they respect speed limits"). I do NOT want some character to then launch into a speech about all the neat things they did in the interim, to explain away the passage of time.
Don't want: any hint, however remote, that this new timeline will be "fixed" in order to merge back to the TOS timeline. Just…no.
Don't want: serious reduction in screen time for Kirk or Spock in order to have a more "ensemble" feel to the film. Kirk and Spock are essential. The other "five" are important but not at the expense of Kirk and Spock.
100% agree with this.
And this.
This sums up my hopes for the franchise...
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
