LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about film

[Balthier the Great]

Re: LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about f

Brutal Strudel said:
It can be good. It might be good. A fair number of movies are--they beat the odds. But it probably won't. But I am a pessimist by nature. Star Trek--fond as I am of it--doesn't get a pass.

I like your reckoning system, btw.

Hey, what can I tell you I'm a nerd :thumbsup:.

But one thing that does impress me about the storyline -- there are a lot of things they haven't said. They aren't talking about the cool [vehicle] scene (like the buggy scene in Nem), they aren't bragging about the epic battles, and they aren't talking about CGI and Special Effects, and finally, Nero isn't being billed as the NEW KHAN.

That much is a fairly good sign, because it means that they aren't trying to get "kewl EFX shots" so much as tell a story. Somebody in hollywood gets it -- Special Effects don't make a good movie. It's the story.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Re: LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about f

Stone_Cold_Sisko said:
if Paramount cares nothing about what die hards think, why are they (reportedly) going with such a fan-wanky plot and messing with alternate timelines to avoid continuity and all that junk, along with Nimoy as Spock? Clearly there's some attempt being made at throwing some bones to the die-hard fans.

Of course they care. It's just not their entire focus. It can't be anymore.