No it isn't.
Silly question of the day...
- Thread starter CDR6
- Start date
T'Bonz posted on 12.23 that Roberto Orci from the Bourne Legacy will direct Trek 3 posted here, it would seem that Paramount still wants to try to make Trek films, a "popcorn movie."
Regarding Abrams and Trek v. Star Wars - no doubt Disney gave Abrams a lot more cash to not only cast people with but also to create more elaborate sets and effects.
Paramount - the executives - simply will not spend a Brinks truck worth of money on the franchise.
Um, that article says that Justin Lin will be directing Trek 3. Though, it seems that there is still the expectation of "popcorn movie" since Lin is the director of the highly successful Fast and Furious franchise. But, Lin also has a variety of other credits to his name, so it should be interesting. Plenty of threads dedicated to it in the Trek XI subforum
Diseny likely is exerting a lot more control over the SW franchise, as they have already invested money to buy LF. So, they are looking at this as the return on their investment.
As I have stated before, Kathleen Kennedy is overseeing all aspects of the LF arm, and (from what I understand) is very much involved to ensure success.
Disney may be willing to spend money, but it isn't frivolous. Abrams will be expected to produce results. They also will not be wasting time on number 8, as they already have a director, which means pre-production will begin right after 7 is released.
It's not entirely meticulous... the stormtrooper armor is different, the X-wings are updated, etc. Shoot, square dish and higher-detail greebling aside, the overall shape of the Milennium Falcon looks more streamlined to me.
Yes, it is.
Nope.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I read. I forget where I saw it, but it included a statement that the new director's mandate is to emulate GOTG. I haven't seen GOTG, so I don't really know how that differs from SW.
Um, that article says that Justin Lin will be directing Trek 3. Though, it seems that there is still the expectation of "popcorn movie" since Lin is the director of the highly successful Fast and Furious franchise. But, Lin also has a variety of other credits to his name, so it should be interesting. Plenty of threads dedicated to it in the Trek XI subforum
Yeah, that's pretty much what I read. I forget where I saw it, but it included a statement that the new director's mandate is to emulate GOTG. I haven't seen GOTG, so I don't really know how that differs from SW.
Um, that article says that Justin Lin will be directing Trek 3. Though, it seems that there is still the expectation of "popcorn movie" since Lin is the director of the highly successful Fast and Furious franchise. But, Lin also has a variety of other credits to his name, so it should be interesting. Plenty of threads dedicated to it in the Trek XI subforum
There's no such mandate but it's pretty clear that Paramount didn't want Orci's script for whatever reasons.
Has it ever been iconic, then?
Star Trek is a reboot, hence the new look. The Force Awakens is a continuation, hence the familiar look.
Same Old Spock. But ST'09 was intended to be a fresh start for Trek. It's a suspension of disbelief thing. Just roll with it.
Yeah, I'm having a hard time understanding how an almost 50-year-old franchise spanning 5 live-action TV shows, an animated series, and 12 feature films, with another one coming to celebrate the 50th anniversary, a franchise still referenced in mainstream TV shows and movies and presidential press conferences is not iconic. If Star Trek is not iconic, than neither is Star Wars, or James Bond, or Doctor Who, etc., etc.
All they showed was a black guy in a stormtrooper uniform. That doesn't make him one any more than Luke Skywalker and Han Solo are.
That is correct.
What definition of iconic are you using?
Merriam-Webster said:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/iconic
Do you see said definition on any of the following pages?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/iconic?s=t
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/iconic
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/iconic
https://www.google.com/#q=iconic
I bet you won't find it in any reputable hard copy dictionary either. Most importantly, you won't find it in the OED.
Merriam Webster being a conservator to the English language a long time ago. It's more a brand name now. It's notoriously lax in its criteria, often accepting vernacular and idiomatic definitions--as noted by its recent inclusion of coincidental irony and the oh-so common misuse of "literally."
So by citing it as your once source, you've basically proved my point for me.
People use the word way too much. The problem is, when everything is iconic, nothing is.
There are only a couple of things in contemporary pop culture that truly pass the initial smell test: Mickey Mouse and maybe Superman. And even then it's iffy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/iconic?s=t
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/iconic
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/iconic
https://www.google.com/#q=iconic
I bet you won't find it in any reputable hard copy dictionary either. Most importantly, you won't find it in the OED.
Merriam Webster being a conservator to the English language a long time ago. It's more a brand name now. It's notoriously lax in its criteria, often accepting vernacular and idiomatic definitions--as noted by its recent inclusion of coincidental irony and the oh-so common misuse of "literally."
So by citing it as your once source, you've basically proved my point for me.
People use the word way too much. The problem is, when everything is iconic, nothing is.
There are only a couple of things in contemporary pop culture that truly pass the initial smell test: Mickey Mouse and maybe Superman. And even then it's iffy.
Similar threads
