• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

#BringinRiker

Giving Star Trek to Michael Bay would be like letting a two year old finish the Mona Lisa.
 
Michael Bay, for all his alleged failings as a filmmaker, knows how to get butts in theater seats. There's a reason he keeps getting directing gigs and its that he knows how to make movies that will sell tickets.

Justin Lin clearly has demonstrated he knows how to do this as well. Directing styles aside, I simply don't see why even the most vehemently opposed Trek fan would see something like that as bad for the franchise. So what if it's a shitty movie by your standards?

If it makes enough money, that means there'll be another one and you live to fight another day. It's why Nemesis was such a double-blow -- it not only sucked, it also failed at the box office and shut things down entirely for a while. Hollywood's a business and regardless of how important or lofty we think Star Trek is, as an ideal or as a form of entertainment, Paramount is going to want one thing above all else: profit. If Bay or Lin or Orci can deliver that (or have at least proven they can do that), then they'll get the job.

And if Lin gets the job, I am totally going to submit "2 STAR 2 TREK" as an entry for a possible title for the film.
 
So what if it's a shitty movie by your standards?
But I'm not an employee of the movie making machine getting a cut of their profits. All I want is to see good Star Trek movies, by my own standards. I'd rather see the plug pulled on Star Trek than have Michael Bay turn it into pure baktag.
 
Do people really think Bay is as bad of a director as they say, or do they just make swipes because it's the in thing to do?
 
Do people really think Bay is as bad of a director as they say, or do they just make swipes because it's the in thing to do?

I've never seen a movie of his I've even mildly enjoyed, but at the same time, I virtually never bring him up in conversation, personally. I just see the thought line as a waste of time at current. I don't like him as a filmmaker, but I like a lot of other people, and I like a lot of other things, and it seems like the internet's totally got my apathy toward Bay's work covered.

I've learned to avoid his films, but I admit if he were in charge of a ST flick I'd give it a whirl anyway, because I'm a total sucker for ST.
 
Do people really think Bay is as bad of a director as they say, or do they just make swipes because it's the in thing to do?

Oh I'm sure it's very much informed by the idea that it's the "in" thing to do, just like blaming Schumacher for killing the Batman franchise.

The fact is, Bay has a disctinctive visual style (like it or not) and can fill theaters.

Of his films, I'd say The Rock is easily his best and my favorite, but I have soft spots for Armageddon (even if it isn't a good film, it's at least one of Bay's better outings) and Bad Boys because they're just big, dumb, fun movies that get a lot of mileage out of the performances Bay gets from his actors.
 
If the overriding issue is going to be filling seats, then I have a few great ideas for them. Make it a prequel with Spock's forbidden teenage love with a human who discovers he's a Vulcan ala Twilight. Release a steamy tie-in novel before the movie with controversial sex, "Fifty Speeds of Warp." Tickets are going to sell.
 
Michael Bay, for all his alleged failings as a filmmaker, knows how to get butts in theater seats. There's a reason he keeps getting directing gigs and its that he knows how to make movies that will sell tickets.

Justin Lin clearly has demonstrated he knows how to do this as well. Directing styles aside, I simply don't see why even the most vehemently opposed Trek fan would see something like that as bad for the franchise. So what if it's a shitty movie by your standards?

If it makes enough money, that means there'll be another one and you live to fight another day. It's why Nemesis was such a double-blow -- it not only sucked, it also failed at the box office and shut things down entirely for a while. Hollywood's a business and regardless of how important or lofty we think Star Trek is, as an ideal or as a form of entertainment, Paramount is going to want one thing above all else: profit. If Bay or Lin or Orci can deliver that (or have at least proven they can do that), then they'll get the job.

And if Lin gets the job, I am totally going to submit "2 STAR 2 TREK" as an entry for a possible title for the film.

+1

So what if it's a shitty movie by your standards?
But I'm not an employee of the movie making machine getting a cut of their profits. All I want is to see good Star Trek movies, by my own standards. I'd rather see the plug pulled on Star Trek than have Michael Bay turn it into pure baktag.

Then just don't see the next outing. Speak with your wallet. :techman:

Though this part is nonsensical:

I'd rather see the plug pulled on Star Trek than have Michael Bay turn it into pure baktag.

Who cares if anyone else enjoys the current product? I want it dead if it isn't done to my standards.
 
Last edited:
Thing is, I have preferences for how I want Star Trek to be. But even if they hired Frakes to direct, brought back Berman to produce and dusted off the Captain Worf script for the next film, I'd still be there opening night.

I like Star Trek. Some I like more than others, but I've always supported it. As my DVD and bookshelf show.

It's just like the Miami Dolphins, most of the time they suck really bad, but I still will support them until my time on this planet is over.
 
If it makes enough money, that means there'll be another one and you live to fight another day. It's why Nemesis was such a double-blow -- it not only sucked, it also failed at the box office and shut things down entirely for a while.

Yeah, but for as bad as Nemesis was, there was still another movie in the same decade. Some franchises recover even more quickly. And sometimes when they do recover, they come like a phoenix from the ashes.

Ideally, people will both like a movie and it will make a lot of money. I think Star Trek has more or less done that for the majority. But if half of people think it stinks (as may be likely with someone like Michael Bay), why would they want that to be the prevailing model? More movies will be made as long as it is successful, and it may take even longer for a fresh take on a beloved franchise to surface.

People shouldn't care as much about how much money it makes unless they like it.
 
Only really interesting thing Lin ever did was Better Luck Tomorrow and his True Detective directing credits. He'd be good news for someone who only wants to bask in the reflected glory of a money-making franchise (which, whatever, hentai makes money, Bay's Transformers make money, WalMart makes money, lots of awful things make money alongside the good projects that do the same), but bad news for anyone who wants a little bit more than that, vis-a-vis actually decent films.

Tyldum and Espinosa are both marginally interesting choices on the strength of a couple of entries in their filmographies. But if I were to treat deadline.com's wisdom as anything close to gospel -- which I wouldn't -- they would look a lot like choices of people meant largely to work underneath Orci just as the choices of screenwriter wore. Not super-promising by any means.
 
Only really interesting thing Lin ever did was Better Luck Tomorrow and his True Detective directing credits.

Well, on the fair side, we haven't seen his work in True Detective just yet. He signed on for the second season, so I suppose we'll find out then (but perhaps too late for Trek 13).

Though, Lin directed a few episodes of Community, including the first paintball episode, which received rave reviews.
 
Jonathan Frakes' excitement at this perceived opportunity to direct STAR TREK 3, to me, seems more like wanting redemption and partly entitlement. I feel it's time that he take on more personal films instead, rather than just working as a solid, reliable, Company Man for the television industry. If he wants recognition and respect as a serious director in today's movie arena, then he's got to start directing Low Budget, Independent Movies - and by that I am not referring to Fan Films! I'm talking about movies like Paranormal Activity.

Actually, independent film (by how you define it) would mean something not sci-fi or horror, but something like the films of Wes Anderson or Todd Solondz (as much as i despise Welcome to the Dollhouse.) But Frakes might be too old to be changing gears, though.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top