Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Out Of My Vulcan Mind, Dec 7, 2013.
They looked like the Wrath of Khan phasers to me...
Not really, but their positions/opinions/arguments may be - there's no rule against that.
LoL, nope, but if you repeat that often enough in forums which are not this one, someone might buy it.
I want to bring sexy back.
I'd go as far as to say that EVERYTHING he has written has been shit.
In my time in fandom I've seen TOS fans mock fans who liked TAS, TOS fans mock those who liked TMP, ST II fans mock fans who liked TMP, TOS fans mock fans who liked ST IV, TOS and TNG fans mock each other... and so on.
I like and watch all Trek, but I still have my preferences. I'll defend the new movies if I hear someone slamming them. If that's "attacking" or "mocking" so be it.
Yes I'd hate for everyone to agree with me. Where's the fun in that?
Sorry, wrong thread.
Is Kurtzman not writing for the same reason Lindelof isn't?
Kurtzman will be overseeing the other properties they work on while Orci is working on the Trek sequel.
They were going to lose their Mummy reboot if they didn't have it in by May. Kurtzman was also gone for all but the final draft of Into Darkness.
The important thing is that William Shatner is still available to direct.
Without any shadow of doubt the best person Paramount could possibly pick to write and/or produce the next Star Trek is ME because then I will be able to ensure that I get exactly what I want in the next movie and go in the direction I want it to. There is no doubt in my mind that to choose anyone else will be a disaster.
Ah, thanks for the info. I wonder if that new Mummy will be any good. I guess I hadn't noticed that it's a franchise now, which is probably evident after two reboots.
Mummy rebooted? Already? Twice? It's like Groundhog Day over and over again out there, and this cliche of repetitive franchises just gets worse and worse. And worse... Wait for it... And worse. And what's wrong with the word "remake" anyway? Making movies sound like a damn computer system is just plain stupid. All sense of purpose or meaning is lost when you can just treat stories, myth and life like an Etch-a-Sketch. Don't like it? Just erase it. I'd rather not spend my time and money on things so worthlessly impermanent.
How is any of it "impermanent"? This tired line of argument fails to convince on the barest of scrutiny. I have been reading comics since the early 1970s and I've read many going back to the 1930s. Just to pick one character--Superman--I can point to at least a dozen iterations (I've not read all the Superman stories in existence, so I'll stick to those I know). Most are more contradictory than any difference between Abrams' Trek and "prime" Trek (which was hardly devoid of internal contradictions). None of the Superman stories in my collection are "erased" by any other. I can go back to them any time I want and read them again (and often do). I don't like each iteration equally, but I usually find something to like in each one (not necessarily each individual story, but overall). I also like comparing and contrasting the different versions as that reveals a lot about the cultural preoccupations of the time in which each was made.
All of the above applies to Trek, Bond or any other long-running "franchise" (film, TV or print). No one has to like all the various versions, naturally, but the existence of one version you dislike does not "erase" the versions you do like. Such thinking is absurd. It's ALL fiction. There is no requirement to slavishly follow one version when adding to the body of work.
Lastly, creators should NEVER make "give the audience what they think they want" as their primary goal. There is no way to ever do that successfully. Far better to present something the creator wants and then hope for the best. Audiences have no right to satisfaction. None whatsoever. They have to right to be dissatisfied with what they see, read, hear, etc. but they have no claims to receiving "what they want" ahead of time.
I don't read comic books, if that gives you any idea. I like a consistent world in which I can invest fully and be confident that it will commit to following its own rules for the duration. Changing the reality or rules of your own universe reminds me of an unimaginative cheating spouse with commitment issues. From what I hear, Hollywood is full of those so I guess it fits.
It is for similar reasons I have not purchased any game console that does not support backward compatibility. So no PS3 or PS4 for me... ad nauseum. The more they do that, the more attractive real people and real outdoors become to me. And I get exercise. If I were into comic books, it would be the same story. If you want to make something new - make something new.
Good for you. Sincerely. You have every right to hold that perspective. And if you have decided to live by those principles in your various activities, more power to you. You have NO RIGHT, however, to expect others to do the same and thus guarantee your expectations are satisfied.
That was unnecessary. Where did I do this in my complaints about reboots? It just seems you're creating a demand where there wasn't one to prop up your own point, which was fine until that sentence.
It was meant as a general "you" not a specific "you". Apologies. I put it in my post because such a sentiment often (though not always) goes hand in hand with the point you've made about preferring an unchanging continuity. I should have made the distinction clearer.
I think it comes up a lot less than you actually bring it up.
SPOLIER! It won't be.
Separate names with a comma.