7 really good reasons star trek 3 is going to be great

[LOKAI of CHERON]

5. REDUCED BUDGET reduced budget isnt always bad for movies just look as wrath of kahn if rumors are to be believed star trek 3 will have a reduced budget which will hopefully lead to a better story and movie.

By all accounts, the budget cut is to be fairly minimal, and will be achieved by means that allow the same production values to appear on screen. At a guess, I'd say we're looking at a figure of "only" $150-170m!

We are not looking at a dramatic TMP>TWOK slash in available funds!

If you're thinking toned down/less action, I imagine you may be in for a disappointment.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Yep, the reduction is basically a saving of $20 million by filming outside of LA. The same thing is being done to save money on Superman Vs. Batman.

 

[tmosler]

despite it being bad robot who is making the movie I think the change of director will make a big difference in the pacing and the way its shot but not too big as the difference seen in star trek the motion picture to wrath of khan because jj abrams will be busy with star wars.

 

[urbandefault]

A new director might not make a noticeable difference, except maybe in the way lens flares are used.

That said, the new director might continue to use them just because they are an established part of the "look."

 

[Ovation]

Hopefuly i have inspired hopes in new trek haters and please COMMENT below with any other good points i may have missed!

Well, the movie that will be made is the movie that the development executives want to be made. And the fact of the matter is that while there are early signs that the original project is outstaying its welcome, they're just that, early signs. There's still just enough positive reinforcement out there (even if it's getting more reserved) to tempt them to go back to that well again.

There is more than "just enough" positive feeling towards both movies with the general viewing public to warrant quite a few more trips to the well. And given the very high degree of viewer satisfaction with the previous two films, there is very little reason to make anything but the most minor of changes to "the plan".

I would not invest a great deal of hope for a change in direction in the next movie. Such a change in direction won't happen until there's a really unequivocal indication that the formula created in ST09 is no longer working.

In fact, people should invest a great deal of hope that a winning approach--one that is highly entertaining and appeals to a much wider audience than any previous iteration of Trek on the big screen (save, perhaps, Trek IV)--will continue. The formula is in no danger of "no longer working" anytime soon.

Spoiler: WARNING: This section of the post contains mild Hatorade content and is not recommended for all readers

Honestly it's my expectation that ST3 will be an improvement over STiD, to probably the same extent that STiD was an improvement over ST09 -- but will probably get an even more lukewarm response despite the improvement because it's still unlikely to be a particularly good movie in overall terms. It seems to me that the entertainment media is gradually correcting its course away from a wildly over-the-top hype and overheated praise of the first Abrams movie that it won't be ready to come out and admit to in frank terms for a while yet.

Spoiler: WARNING: This section of the post provides an antidote for anyone accidentally ingesting Hatorade, mild or otherwise.

Actually, each of the first two films were more than just "good", given their goals and the genre in which they are situated. This mildly passive-aggressive form of "damning with faint praise" is neither compelling nor especially connected with reality. Reality is that each film was both critically acclaimed and hugely popular--that a very small subset of filmgoers--Trekkies who disliked the Abrams films--did not feel catered to in an appropriate fashion is hardly an indication that "the entertainment media is gradually correcting its course away from a wildly over-the-top hype and overheated praise of the first Abrams movie that it won't be ready to come out and admit to in frank terms for a while yet."

 

[Sindatur]

As much as some folks want to bash Orci (for his reaction online a time or two to criticism that went beyond the pail into making it personal), I think, he will try to make some concessions to those fans. Some will never be happy, C'est La Vie, some will notice the concessions and be happy, and others won't have that same positive reaction. But, I do think Orci is thinking about some of those criticisms, and will try to make them more palatable within the context of the film he has write (IE: He will try to think in advance of some of those, "if you'd just made this 10 second change..." comments.

Of course, he can't go as far as some would like, but, I think, he will try to reach out to some of the more sane, "just change this small part/line" complaints.

He does need to write an Action Packed movie, so, if you want a talky, contemplative movie, you're not likely to find it in today's "Summer Tent Pole" market where Star Trek currently sits

I definitely do want to see a a Series that can build the Politics and religion and strife slowly, like B5, DS9 or Farscape, but, that kind of development, just doesn't have the proper time allotted in films, especially Summer Tent Poles.

 

[BigJake]

Spoiler: WARNING: This section of the post contains an adorable picture of a kitten

Ha! Got you! No, of course this section of the post contains more arguing, but then we'll get to pictures of kittens.

This mildly passive-aggressive form of "damning with faint praise"

I take exception, sir. I'm precisely as aggressive as I mean to be.

Reality is that each film was both critically acclaimed and hugely popular

ST09 was certainly enormously overrated given that it had flaws that would have sunk a similar film not sailing under the Trek brand -- owing of course to successful exploitation of nostalgia, which the film was ideally designed for. I contend this because the rumbles of discontentment that emerged with STiD -- hardly only from "Trekkies who dislike the Abrams films" and "did not feel catered to in an appropriate fashion," actually -- all targeted flaws that ST09 committed far worse versions of and yet got a pass, indeed often an explicitly stated pass, for.

Now (just to anticipate some of the usual): What rumblings of discontentment?! Don't I know it had such-and-such a Rotten Tomatoes rating, and that those are 100% scientific proof that my opinion is wrong?!?! WHY AM I PEEING ON THE FRANCHISE / SCHEMING TO BRING BACK RICK BERMAN'S REIGN OF TERROR?!?!?!?!?! In reverse order:

- I'm not, honestly and for realsies;

- Rotten Tomatoes scores aren't particularly scientific (under the "positive" reviews on the aggregator for STiD one can find rather half-hearted pieces like this, for instance, or like this, or like this, or like this, or like this, all supposedly "positive" reviews that contain surprisingly little positivity), so citing them like the Tablets of Testament is misleading;

- And as for what other rumblings there are... well, one indication is the surprising number of "most disappointing film" lists that STiD wound up on, like here, or here, or here, or here, or here, or
here, or here, or
here, or here, or here, or here, or here, or here.

The constant refrain that there's nothing to see here and if anyway there is it must just be a teeny-tiny handful of disgruntled ultra-Trekkies is wearing awfully thin. Most of those links above are the "general audience" that Abrams delivered talking, not Trekkies; and when you're getting "positive" reviews that read for two-thirds of their length like pans, and people start talking widely about your product as "disappointing," that's what I call early signs that the formula is wearing thin. And I'm not pointing this out maliciously, it's just a fact that I'm observing in the world around me and deducing a trend from. It's guesswork, of course, but I'm finding the whole phenomenon quite fascinating, especially the weirdly harsher treatment a much-improved sequel (regardless of one's feelings about the movies' overall quality) is getting, so I'm trying to make the guesswork as educated as I can.

Okay? Hopefully that all makes sense. Time for some kittens.

Spoiler: WARNING: . . . but THIS section of the post contains the most adorable kitten you ever saw, SRSLY

Well, it's not a kitten. But still... pretty adorable, right?

 

[Sindatur]

Spoiler: WARNING: . . . but THIS section of the post contains the most adorable kitten you ever saw, SRSLY

Well, it's not a kitten. But still... pretty adorable, right?

Awwwwww...My sweet little Chops-Kitty

She loves fresh or steamed/deep-fried fish and marinated chicken

 

[BigJake]

Spoiler: WARNING: . . . but THIS section of the post contains the most adorable kitten you ever saw, SRSLY

Well, it's not a kitten. But still... pretty adorable, right?

Awwwwww...My sweet little Chops-Kitty

She loves fresh or steamed/deep-fried fish and marinated chicken

How did you know?!

 

[Sindatur]

Spoiler: WARNING: . . . but THIS section of the post contains the most adorable kitten you ever saw, SRSLY

Well, it's not a kitten. But still... pretty adorable, right?

Awwwwww...My sweet little Chops-Kitty

She loves fresh or steamed/deep-fried fish and marinated chicken

How did you know?!

What do you mean "How did I know"? I'm relating personal experiences here

 

[Set Harth]

......

 

[BigJake]

ST09 was certainly enormously overrated given that it had flaws that would have sunk a similar film

According to who? [snip]

I would be tempted to call what followed there a series of strawmen and evasive burbles, Set, but you deliver it all with such style that I will instead term it graceful dancing. For you.

[there was a beautiful, graceful GIF of Mila Kunis in Black Swan here as a reward for stylistic excellence, but Set's choice of discretion as the better part of valour renders it unnecessary]

 

[Ovation]

Spoiler: WARNING: This section of the post contains an adorable picture of a kitten

Ha! Got you! No, of course this section of the post contains more arguing, but then we'll get to pictures of kittens.

This mildly passive-aggressive form of "damning with faint praise"

I take exception, sir. I'm precisely as aggressive as I mean to be.

Reality is that each film was both critically acclaimed and hugely popular

ST09 was certainly enormously overrated given that it had flaws that would have sunk a similar film not sailing under the Trek brand -- owing of course to successful exploitation of nostalgia, which the film was ideally designed for. I contend this because the rumbles of discontentment that emerged with STiD -- hardly only from "Trekkies who dislike the Abrams films" and "did not feel catered to in an appropriate fashion," actually -- all targeted flaws that ST09 committed far worse versions of and yet got a pass, indeed often an explicitly stated pass, for.

Now (just to anticipate some of the usual): What rumblings of discontentment?! Don't I know it had such-and-such a Rotten Tomatoes rating, and that those are 100% scientific proof that my opinion is wrong?!?! WHY AM I PEEING ON THE FRANCHISE / SCHEMING TO BRING BACK RICK BERMAN'S REIGN OF TERROR?!?!?!?!?! In reverse order:

- I'm not, honestly and for realsies;

- Rotten Tomatoes scores aren't particularly scientific (under the "positive" reviews on the aggregator for STiD one can find rather half-hearted pieces like this, for instance, or like this, or like this, or like this, or like this, all supposedly "positive" reviews that contain surprisingly little positivity), so citing them like the Tablets of Testament is misleading;

- And as for what other rumblings there are... well, one indication is the surprising number of "most disappointing film" lists that STiD wound up on, like here, or here, or here, or here, or here, or
here, or here, or
here, or here, or here, or here, or here, or here.

The constant refrain that there's nothing to see here and if anyway there is it must just be a teeny-tiny handful of disgruntled ultra-Trekkies is wearing awfully thin. Most of those links above are the "general audience" that Abrams delivered talking, not Trekkies; and when you're getting "positive" reviews that read for two-thirds of their length like pans, and people start talking widely about your product as "disappointing," that's what I call early signs that the formula is wearing thin. And I'm not pointing this out maliciously, it's just a fact that I'm observing in the world around me and deducing a trend from. It's guesswork, of course, but I'm finding the whole phenomenon quite fascinating, especially the weirdly harsher treatment a much-improved sequel (regardless of one's feelings about the movies' overall quality) is getting, so I'm trying to make the guesswork as educated as I can.

Okay? Hopefully that all makes sense. Time for some kittens.

Actually, what's wearing thin is the idea that, somehow, Abrams' two Trek films are not wildly successful, both in general appeal to the movie going public and in the view of movie critics in the aggregate.

Are they flawless films? Of course not. Then again, no film is flawless. Will they be remembered as cinematic classics on par with Lawrence of Arabia, Casablanca, Jaws, Psycho, Raging Bull, The Searchers, Fargo or the Lord of the Rings movies, among others? Highly unlikely. Do they excel in their aims, given the genre and type of cinematic experience they explicitly seek to provide? You betcha. The FACT is the complainers are a minority--and a small one at that. There really is no persuasive way to get around that fact. To suggest otherwise, no matter how indirectly, is ludicrous.

As for the thread title: 7 really good reasons star trek 3 is going to be great (sic--capitalization is your friend, OP), here are 7 reasons.

One--Bad Robot is still in charge.

Two--The secondary cast is excellent and, until noted otherwise, is returning.

Three--Lens flares.

Four--The first two films provide a solid foundation for going forward.

Five--The next film will still be inspired by TOS rather than any other iteration (I've watched them all and enjoyed each one, to varying degrees, but TOS remains the gold standard).

Six--Pine and Quinto have proven they can carry off the most important roles in all of Trek with aplomb, so I see no reason not to expect the same going forward.

Seven--Because I said so. (oh and, did I mention lens flares? )

 

[BigJake]

The FACT is the complainers are a minority--and a small one at that.

The fact is that films' reputations evolve and formulas tire. I just described to you why I think that's happening here. (And no, I'm not going to claim it as a fact, LET ALL ALONE ONE IN ALL CAPS. I'm just interpreting what I'm seeing.) That's all this is, baby. That's all this is.

 

[Set Harth]

You see, the entertainment media are twerps distracted by the latest shiny new thing... but when it comes to STID we should totally listen to them! Because that makes sense!

I would be tempted to call what followed there a series of strawmen

I'm sure you're made of stronger stuff than that. Less flammable, at least.

 

[BigJake]

Sorry, your "graceful dancing" certificate is revoked, now this is getting to be like watching you (attempt to) discuss global warming. (Not without its entertainment value, admittedly. )

 

[Set Harth]

Doesn't that make their opinion a little unreliable in general terms?

Well, I guess this is one of those questions which is destined to never be answered, or something. If only Bart Simpson were here.

now this is getting to be like watching you (attempt to) discuss global warming.

The "majority" has spoken; that's all I need to know, right? Minorities need to know their place, after all.

Not without its entertainment value, admittedly.

Well, why didn't you say so? If it qualifies as entertainment, we should let some bloggers have the final say. There's no way that could ever go wrong.

 

[BigJake]

The "majority" has spoken; that's all I need to know, right? Minorities need to know their place, after all.

Ohhh, this is getting good.

 

[Set Harth]

The "never" part is looking more and more accurate by the minute...

 

[BigJake]

Perhaps we can set our laughing Romulans to duel in a gladiator-style arena. They will struggle mightily for a thousand Stardates, and somewhere in that time it will dawn on you that there's a possible flaw in the premise of your question...

... or not. Whatevs. Shine on, you crazy diamond.