I didn't see him in the line-up with Keenser and co. Plus, Joseph Gatt said in August that he wasn't in the movie. IMDb does have him credited, however, although that's probably not worth anything.
Justin Lin on the Trailer and Beyond's Clash of Philosophies
- Thread starter Ryan Thomas Riddle
- Start date
I didn't see him in the line-up with Keenser and co. Plus, Joseph Gatt said in August that he wasn't in the movie. IMDb does have him credited, however, although that's probably not worth anything.
Correct. Anyone can submit anything to IMDB, they don't seem to do much vetting.
He's also listed on this casting call for Star Trek Beyond released a couple of days after Gatt revealed he wasn't going to be in the movie.
Maybe, just maybe, he was rewritten into the movie at some point. Although it's more likely the casting call was using old material (from before 0718 was written out) or just copying the names from the IMDb page.
Maybe, just maybe, he was rewritten into the movie at some point. Although it's more likely the casting call was using old material (from before 0718 was written out) or just copying the names from the IMDb page.
Idk I get this vibe from Lin that he is almost bored and doesn't exactly love the previous films but is like 'gotta not ignore them'. Idk how I feel about this. Him being a fan of tos is, frankly, less important than whatever he is a fan of this trek which is the one he is working for. I wish we could get a director and writers who genuinely liked the reboot and wanted to continue it.
Btw, Faraci is biased and projecting as usual. Even about the whole 'stid never happened' it's not what Lin said. They don't need to address the magic blood and khan but it doesn't mean that stb isn't still a sequel of stid.
And as for Spock/Uhura, he said everything and nothing but no way you can say Lin stated they break up, as Faraci seemed to imply over twitter.
The relationship was prominent in the first movies but it's developed in a way it doesn't need to be the be all end all of the story so it might be pretty easy to address it still exists as a continuity with the other movies, even if this story/plot doesn't have a ton of quiet character moments.
Btw, Faraci is biased and projecting as usual. Even about the whole 'stid never happened' it's not what Lin said. They don't need to address the magic blood and khan but it doesn't mean that stb isn't still a sequel of stid.
And as for Spock/Uhura, he said everything and nothing but no way you can say Lin stated they break up, as Faraci seemed to imply over twitter.
The relationship was prominent in the first movies but it's developed in a way it doesn't need to be the be all end all of the story so it might be pretty easy to address it still exists as a continuity with the other movies, even if this story/plot doesn't have a ton of quiet character moments.
Of course they're going to ignore the fact death has been cured. Voyager did the same thing when Seven brought that abomination Neelix back to life. No writer would ever want to be confined by a plot device like death having no meaning. I also got that Lin isn't exactly enamoured with the first 2 movies and neither am I. He doesn't need to erase those movies from continuity. All he has to do is work with his own story. Fine by me since his story sounds like it has something to say. Of course it could be terrible but I'll make that call when I see it.
In just a 90-second trailer we got Kirk listening to Sabotage and Kirk riding his bike, both callbacks to the 2009 movie. My takeaway is that Lin is building on the new movie world and characterisations.
True but that's likely because Abrams didn't do any of that which is what he should have done since this version of Star Trek is supposed to be a clean slate. Finally we get some new alien races. The only thing Abrams gave us was that disfigured Ewok rip off and the creature that attacked Kirk on the ice planet.
The way I see it, what happened in stid with Khan's blood cannot become the rule as soon as that movie itself made it obvious to me that they used the trick in those circumstances, but the sent Khan back to his previous state. It's a non issue to me because it's clear that this plot device was linked to specific circumstances of that movie.
Also, they didn't 'cure death'. For me, Kirk wasn't really dead. Sure, for a doctor he basically was, but I think he still had some vital signs (death is not immediate in reality, your body doesn't just 'stop' everything in a minute ) that's why they needed to be fast getting Khan's blood.
And maybe Mccoy analized it later and they found a way to use what they learn from his blood and it's regenerative ability, to cure some diseases that have not a cure yet (see the little girl)
I'd see nothing wrong or unrealistic about that, improvements made in medicine often are the results of stuff like that. (Lol, of course not the same stuff. )
But, again, I don't really see stid saying 'we can cure death'. (Didn't tos have examples like that too? Btw. E.g. Scotty and later in movies Mccoy giving a 'pill' to that old lady? Are we really still using the 'realistic' argument for a sci-fi thing set in the future, here?)
As for the rest, agree to disagree
For me Lin liking tos is not important (previous movies were made by guys who weren't tos fans and those were successful see JJ himself and Nick Meyer) but him being entusiastic about the reboot maybe is because, ultimately, he is working in this trek not the other. And again, I wish we got someone who had some passion and excitement for the first movies and wanted to add his stuff but also wanted to continue what was done before because he loved it.
For me, it seems like we got what was 'available' to make a conclusion the moment we lost the original creative team. We got the people who were willing to try and make another movie, or the movie requested by paramount&co, but their heart, beside tos nostalgia, isn't into it.
In fact, Lin is kind of already saying he might not return for more movies.
The new movieverse was set up specifically so they could revisit established Trek lore if they wished (as they did in ID), or do something entirely new (as they are here)
Right. "Clean slate" didn't mean avoiding every concept from TOS -- after all, it is about Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc. It's just about not being bound by the extensive established history of the Prime Universe. Being free to feature events that would not be doable in a Prime-U prequel, like Vulcan's destruction or a Spock-Uhura romance or Section 31 being exposed in the 23rd century. Heck, if they were avoiding established lore, then they wouldn't have needed a new timeline. They need a new timeline so that they can tell stories about established things in new ways.
I've noticed the same thing. It's almost like they want JJ to come back and say he wasn't a fan of Star Trek.
So the "Bermanites" aren't part of our community?
Agree. I enjoy listening to him converse. Remember, when he was first hired, he spoke of his love of trek and watching it with his father at a young age.
Smart thing to do. It's almost like they are picking up where 2009 left off and ignoring STID.
I get the distinct impression that, no matter what anyone involved with the movie says, you're gonna find some hidden stuff you don't like implicated between the lines.
For me, Lin already got off on the right foot by just saying he's a fan of TOS, and moving on. JJ kinda got on my nerves with his continuous comments about how he wasn't a fan and all that when he was doing the press for ST09. Yes, we got it, no need to constantly say it like it's some badge of honor.
The Collider interview quelled about 95% of my worries from the trailer. Bring on STBeyond, I can't wait!
Well, suddenly I'm anticipating this movie a whole lot more! Mr Lin does have a pleasant knack for saying the right things. This simple, strong core concept of clashing philosophies feels, to me, very much in the spirit of Trek, and has considerable potential if handled properly. It's also very much in my personal wheelhouse - beliefs are all well and good, but how do they hold up under pressure? Are they reinforced, redefined, or undermined? I love to explore that. Consider me much keener on the film, now.
At the risk of sounding a little corny, it even gives the title some depth and meaning - how do your ideologies cope with being pushed to the very limit...and Beyond?
At the risk of sounding a little corny, it even gives the title some depth and meaning - how do your ideologies cope with being pushed to the very limit...and Beyond?
Nicholas Meyer pretty much did the same thing. Being a fan or not has nothing to do with whether or not you can make a good movie. And the reason he made the same comments continuously in the press tour is because that's what everyone does in a press tour. They get asked the same questions over and over again by different reporters and give the same answers over and over again. They're hardly doing it to be smug or something; on the contrary, it's generally quite tedious for them to spend days getting asked the same questions and having to repeat themselves over and over. If he kept talking about not having been a fan, it was probably because the reporters kept asking him about it. The problem is, the articles generally cut out the reporters' questions unless they're in Q&A format, so it can give the illusion that the interviewee is offering the answers spontaneously.
Heck, one thing reporters like to do is stir up controversy, because it attracts views to their articles. So they may have made a point of asking Abrams the "not a fan" question and getting sound bites that they could use to support that narrative, specifically in order to manipulate fans into getting upset about it.
I'm very pleased with what I read in this article. I liked the "This is the frontier pushing back" line a lot and I'm greatly intrigued at the Federation philosophy being challenged this way for the first time. It's a stronger premise to go with than the "bad man with a big gun" storyline the last three movies have clung to.
It's not quite the first time. "It's easy to be a saint in paradise" and Eddington's "You're worse than the Borg," lines regarding imperialist assimilation tactics tweaked Federation policy in intelligent ways. But it's a lot better than what passed for commentary in some past movies.
Well, to be fair, STID was trying for a deeper message about whether security justified compromising liberty and undermining your society's values. It just got kind of lost amid all the action in the third act.
And I feel Nemesis actually had a pretty good Trek-philosophy core to it; the Picard-Shinzon conflict was an examination of the question of whether our nature is predetermined by birth or shaped by experience and choice, and how we can use the former notion to evade responsibility for our actions or use the latter notion as an impetus to correct our mistakes and better ourselves. The "big gun" angle did kind of get in the way of that, but that's more the fault of the feature-film industry in general and the insistence on big, cataclysmic threats.
Yeah. I kind of would like there to be a single challenge to the writers of Trek movies: write something where no one dies.
I think that alone would probably at least mean they'd write a movie where, even if there is an antagonist, that person is not an outright moustache-twirler. Ideally, it would inspire the writers to write something without a personified antagonist at all, but something more like The Martian, Interstellar, Gravity, or even Master and Commander. That movie was ostensibly about chasing their French foe, but was really about the crew and the episodic adventures they had around the world, and the tension between science and war, friendship and duty.
I think that alone would probably at least mean they'd write a movie where, even if there is an antagonist, that person is not an outright moustache-twirler. Ideally, it would inspire the writers to write something without a personified antagonist at all, but something more like The Martian, Interstellar, Gravity, or even Master and Commander. That movie was ostensibly about chasing their French foe, but was really about the crew and the episodic adventures they had around the world, and the tension between science and war, friendship and duty.