Link, please.
Orci talks about Star Trek 3
- Thread starter Enterprise is Great
- Start date
Link, please.
Probably referring to this:
from here: http://trekmovie.com/2014/07/10/orc...recting-deal-not-final-until-script-finished/
So "They're not going to greenlight the film until there's something to greenlight."
Translates to "They're probably not going to greenlight it"?
I see.
Translates to "They're probably not going to greenlight it"?
I see.
At least they are trying to start shooting with a script this time
Why all the negative talk? Is ID so bad that we not only hope for no more Trek films but cheer it on when bad news comes up?
At least they are trying to start shooting with a script this time
Why all the negative talk? Is ID so bad that we not only hope for no more Trek films but cheer it on when bad news comes up?
To keep momentum (arguably life) in NuTrek, the writing and by extension the plot and acting in ST3 needs to be solid. I loved ST09 and STID and I'd hate to see a drop in quality. If anything, I'd like just a smidge more explanation here and there just so some things that might have passed as assumptions in the two films make a bit more sense. But, no technobabble please!
Define "shallowness"? I found Star Trek Into Darkness deep enough.
James Cameron has a blank-check for the Avatar sequels. I would also think JJ has a blank-check for Star Wars VII. If Paramount is reigning in the budget for Trek 3, it is in some way a reflection of their "restrained" level of confidence in the franchise.
I think it tried sometimes, but I didn't buy it. Peter Weller was a caricature and the "big bad government" subplot was therefore painted in too broad cartoony strokes. Trying to make khan's evil-ness ambiguous also didn't work, especially when he turned to evil on a dime. And the whole Kirk sacrifice thing felt like fanservice homage and not at all deep or moving.
I think it tried sometimes, but I didn't buy it. Peter Weller was a caricature and the "big bad government" subplot was therefore painted in too broad cartoony strokes. Trying to make khan's evil-ness ambiguous also didn't work, especially when he turned to evil on a dime. And the whole Kirk sacrifice thing felt like fanservice homage and not at all deep or moving.
You mean they're giving it a budget commiserate with other mid-major hits. You seem to ignore the fact that Paramount wanted to move the last two films out of LA, but that Abrams nixed the idea.
If you're a studio exec, do you spend $190 million on a film if you only really need to spend $170 million? If Abrams was still in the fold, they would likely be shooting in LA with an increased budget. With an untested director, the bean counters can throw their weight around a little more.
Like most of Star Trek. Much of Star Trek works in "cartoony" broad strokes. It's one of its charms.
How did he turn "evil" on a dime? He destroyed the Kelvin memorial, turned Daystrom into swiss cheese and butchered a ton of Klingons.
He tried to play Kirk with the 'whoa is me' line but it is pretty clear it didn't work. Hence, Kirk ordering Scott to drop Khan when they made it to the Vengeance bridge.
Scott: Shoot Khan? I thought he was helping us?
Kirk: I'm pretty sure we're helping him.
My seven-year old cried during Kirk's sacrifice.
Weller was great in the role. He was playing the "rogue military element" trope, not "big bad government" trope. He was also quite restrained and not the OTT caricature one often sees.
Khan was "evil" the whole time. He tried to gain a little empathy, but no one really bought it. Kirk used him and he used Kirk.
I found the "homage" more moving and better acted and directed than the original.
The scary thing about Admiral Marcus was that he wasn't much of a caricature. After Germany surrendered in World War II, George Patton advocated going right on and fighting the Soviet Union. In Korea, Douglas MacArthur would've had no problem escalating the war and fighting China. Curtis Lemay presented a plan to President Kennedy for a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, believing that war with them was inevitable, and we should strike while we're still stronger. He estimated there may be about 10 million American deaths, but it would be worth it to win.
No, Marcus wasn't much of a caricature. If anything, he was all too real.
The great Jim Kirk admitting he's scared is not deep or moving?
I'm guessing he was suppose to give a speech about how he isn't afraid of death.
"I ain't afraid of no death!"
The worst part is that because of his mind-meld with Pike, Spock knows exactly what Kirk is going through, but because they are separated, he can to nothing to alleviate his friend's suffering. It's tragic and moving.
The movie definitely has layers to it, for those willing to give it a chance. It still isn't perfect, but it is a great movie to watch. It's incredibly entertaining.
False equivalencies are fun!
You're equating Star Trek to the most successful film of all time and the largest IP in the world.
FFS.
Acted? Eh. Maybe.
Directed? Definitely.
Similar threads
