Star Trek 3 news/rumours/casting thread

[Dac]

When I say "I'd like some more exploration" that doesn't mean I want an hour of gaseous anomalies, that means "I want some space battles in a place that isn't Earth or the solar system".

Really it just means, I'm sick of Earth.

To be fair, though, a battle set in Earth orbit is more exciting than, say, Veridian III. Sure, the fate of Veridian III is exciting to us (or not), but the average moviegoer doesn't give two fucks about the fate of the denizens of Omicron Theta Omega Epsilon Phi Alpha XVIII.

Why does the movie have to be about the fate of x planet? Into Darkness wasn't about that, Harrison/Khan never said he'd wipe out Earth, he just wanted to save his crew and kill starfleet people because reasons. It took place at Earth though, but in reality the finale of Into Darkness could have happened in the orbit of Kronos and the movie would have probably had a bigger impact in the actions of Kirk sacrificing himself to save the Klingons and his crew. Anyway, I'm digressing.

Using Earth is cheap. It's our collective home, of course the audience cares about it. The mark of a good story would be that the audience does care for Omicron Persei 8 or whatever because the story is good enough to affect them on an emotional level. I sure as shit cared for Xandar in GotG, and I cared about Yavin IV in Star Wars. Likewise, Middle-Earth isn't a real place, but the LOTR trilogy is one of the most engaging cinematic works of all time - the audience cares about that world.

Now, all of these examples aren't what Trek should try and be or do - but they are varied examples of fake fantasy worlds that engaged audiences, and between all of these theres a spot for Trek.

 

[JWPlatt]

...success or failure isn't about slavishly following some formula, but about the individual merits of a given film. Even something that nobody expects to succeed can be a success if it's good enough on its own merits.

There are formulas - Save the Earth! - and then there are formulas - Save the Cat!. Regardless of whether it follows the former, it typically follows the latter.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

I'm pretty sure that in Star Wars: The Force Awakens—a movie that will not be decades old until after twenty years from now, and yet which is expected to be released prior to the next Star Trek film—the Earth will not be endangered.

I also expect the Star Wars film to do fairly well financially. Yep, fairly well, at least.

What do you all think?

I'm pretty sure Star Trek is not Star Wars (and will never be on the same level). SW will be successful because of enormous popularity.

Avatar and Guardians of the Galaxy are not decades old. They are, respectively, from 2009 and 2014. And Avatar is the highest-grossing film of all time.

Avatar was a billion-dollar James Cameron project, and those were the secrets to its success. Again, simply not in the same boat as Trek. If you can get Cameron to helm ST3, maybe it can happen off-world. But by and large today's audiences want to see Earth in peril or destroyed (Avengers, Man of Steel, Trek 2, Transformers movies, etc...). It's some weird cathartic thing, I guess.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I'm pretty sure that in Star Wars: The Force Awakens—a movie that will not be decades old until after twenty years from now, and yet which is expected to be released prior to the next Star Trek film—the Earth will not be endangered.

I also expect the Star Wars film to do fairly well financially. Yep, fairly well, at least.

What do you all think?

I'm pretty sure Star Trek is not Star Wars (and will never be on the same level). SW will be successful because of enormous popularity.

Avatar and Guardians of the Galaxy are not decades old. They are, respectively, from 2009 and 2014. And Avatar is the highest-grossing film of all time.

Avatar was a billion-dollar James Cameron project, and those were the secrets to its success. Again, simply not in the same boat as Trek. If you can get Cameron to helm ST3, maybe it can happen off-world. But by and large today's audiences want to see Earth in peril or destroyed (Avengers, Man of Steel, Trek 2, Transformers movies, etc...). It's some weird cathartic thing, I guess.

Well, why can't I argue that the secret of the success of Transformers and Avengers is that they're billion-dollar projects too? They're obviously not in the same boat as Trek either.

 

[Christopher]

Why does the movie have to be about the fate of x planet? Into Darkness wasn't about that, Harrison/Khan never said he'd wipe out Earth, he just wanted to save his crew and kill starfleet people because reasons. It took place at Earth though, but in reality the finale of Into Darkness could have happened in the orbit of Kronos and the movie would have probably had a bigger impact in the actions of Kirk sacrificing himself to save the Klingons and his crew. Anyway, I'm digressing.

I don't think you're digressing at all; it's perfectly relevant. The devastation of San Francisco added nothing to the story and was included only for the most mercenary of reasons. The goal of studio executives in pushing for so many recent movies to have these huge orgies of city destruction is more for the sake of making the trailers exciting than anything else. It's a cheap trick to hook viewers, nothing more. And it's a fad that's already worn out its welcome.

The mark of a good story would be that the audience does care for Omicron Persei 8 or whatever because the story is good enough to affect them on an emotional level.

Okay, now I want to see Kirk vs. Lrrr.

Likewise, Middle-Earth isn't a real place, but the LOTR trilogy is one of the most engaging cinematic works of all time - the audience cares about that world.

Well, as its name implies, Middle-earth is supposed to be a fantasy version of prehistoric Europe, more or less -- it's the kind of fantasy that pretends to be in an ancient past lost to the mists of time, rather than on another world. Of course, it's functionally an alien world, but those who buy into the faddish party line that "audiences only like stories about Earth" can justify their prejudices by claiming that it's actually Earth.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

Well, why can't I argue that the secret of the success of Transformers and Avengers is that they're billion-dollar projects too? They're obviously not in the same boat as Trek either.

Not at all. They succeeded because they are "Earth in Peril" movies (and Michael Bay's hand in Transformers didn't hurt).

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Well, why can't I argue that the secret of the success of Transformers and Avengers is that they're billion-dollar projects too? They're obviously not in the same boat as Trek either.

Not at all. They succeeded because they are "Earth in Peril" movies (and Michael Bay's hand in Transformers didn't hurt).

Ah, so when it comes to billion-dollar franchises, since it supports your contention, Transformers is counted among your "examples." But on the other hand, since it contradicts your contention, Avatar is excluded.

That's what's referred to as cherry picking.

 

[Christopher]

Well, why can't I argue that the secret of the success of Transformers and Avengers is that they're billion-dollar projects too? They're obviously not in the same boat as Trek either.

Not at all. They succeeded because they are "Earth in Peril" movies (and Michael Bay's hand in Transformers didn't hurt).

That is a completely nonsensical statement and I can't believe you said it. I mean, if you think about it, most movies are set on Earth, but there are still plenty of movies that fail, including plenty of movies in which Earth is imperiled (or already destroyed, as in many post-apocalyptic movies). It therefore makes no sense to say that just setting a movie on or around Earth will, in and of itself, cause it to succeed.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

When I say "I'd like some more exploration" that doesn't mean I want an hour of gaseous anomalies, that means "I want some space battles in a place that isn't Earth or the solar system".

Really it just means, I'm sick of Earth.

To be fair, though, a battle set in Earth orbit is more exciting than, say, Veridian III. Sure, the fate of Veridian III is exciting to us (or not), but the average moviegoer doesn't give two fucks about the fate of the denizens of Omicron Theta Omega Epsilon Phi Alpha XVIII.

Why does the movie have to be about the fate of x planet? Into Darkness wasn't about that, Harrison/Khan never said he'd wipe out Earth, he just wanted to save his crew and kill starfleet people because reasons. It took place at Earth though, but in reality the finale of Into Darkness could have happened in the orbit of Kronos and the movie would have probably had a bigger impact in the actions of Kirk sacrificing himself to save the Klingons and his crew. Anyway, I'm digressing.

Using Earth is cheap. It's our collective home, of course the audience cares about it. The mark of a good story would be that the audience does care for Omicron Persei 8 or whatever because the story is good enough to affect them on an emotional level. I sure as shit cared for Xandar in GotG, and I cared about Yavin IV in Star Wars. Likewise, Middle-Earth isn't a real place, but the LOTR trilogy is one of the most engaging cinematic works of all time - the audience cares about that world.

Now, all of these examples aren't what Trek should try and be or do - but they are varied examples of fake fantasy worlds that engaged audiences, and between all of these theres a spot for Trek.

But, the point is, we didn't know any characters on Kronos, so Kirk saving the day won't matter. I cared about the destruction of Vulcan because of Spock, Sarek and Amanda. Now that that's gone, and since the Enterprise is populated mostly by humans, Earth is the default place to go for dramatic purposes.

I did care about the characters of Xandar because I thought they were entertaining (especially the pawn dealer and John C. Reilly). Nobody would have cared if the Klingons were saved because they were on screen for all of two seconds and threatened the lives of Kirk and crew.

 

[Dac]

I did care about the characters of Xandar because I thought they were entertaining (especially the pawn dealer and John C. Reilly). Nobody would have cared if the Klingons were saved because they were on screen for all of two seconds and threatened the lives of Kirk and crew.

I guess in my head I was thinking that the whole reason they were at Kronos was as a pretext to war, The Vengeance shows up, pummels the Enterprise and leaves it to crash into Kronos causing widespread devastation, Kirk does his whole TWOK re-enactment, saves the Enterprise which in turn allows the crew of the Enterprise to save the Klingons and tell them about the Vengeance, Klingons and Ent team up to take it down, McCoy realises he needs Khan's blood, Spock beams over to the Vengeance to grab Khan, ships blowing up blah blah cut to black wake up two weeks later and everything is fine. Basically, Khan/Harrison uses the Enterprise suicide bombing Kronos as a pretext to start the war (much like the Enterprise firing torpedoes would have) and Kirk stopping the Enterprise from blowing up by going his thing stops the war from happening and improves relations with the Klingons. The point wouldn't be saving Kronos as much as stopping a war.

But yeah, that was all in my head and not communicated at all. So thats my bad :P

 

[BillJ]

New villain or old, saving Earth or saving planet x or saving the universe or exploration, I'm just up for an entertaining movie every few years with characters I've enjoyed since childhood.

They don't need to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Christopher]

But, the point is, we didn't know any characters on Kronos, so Kirk saving the day won't matter.

But as Dac said, a movie doesn't have to be about a threat to an entire planet. What engages an audience is a threat to the characters we know, regardless of whether that threat is to their whole planet or just to their ship or their family.

Often, global destruction is an incidental element in a story. Princess Leia saw her home planet destroyed in Star Wars, but it was such a trivial plot point that it was all but forgotten about within minutes. What we were invested in was the danger to the characters themselves.

Here's Rotten Tomatoes' list of the 100 top-rated SF/fantasy movies on their site. How many involve the threat of global destruction, of Earth or any other planet? Doctor Strangelove, Star Trek '09, The Terminator and Terminator 2, Marvel's The Avengers, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Star Wars, Guardians of the Galaxy, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Edge of Tomorrow, and arguably Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Ghostbusters, and Gojira. That's only 10-12 percent of the best-regarded genre movies. You absolutely do not need to threaten an entire planet with destruction in order to tell a good story. You only need to imperil that which the main characters care about.

 

[Franklin]

New villain or old, saving Earth or saving planet x or saving the universe or exploration, I'm just up for an entertaining movie every few years with characters I've enjoyed since childhood.

They don't need to reinvent the wheel.

This.

I wouldn't have wanted to see Kirk saving Earth (or an earth or the entire universe) every week of TOS, though I would say it makes sense for the stakes to be higher in a feature film.

And, why can't there be exploration and something major at stake? TMP was more or less that way. They didn't know it right away, but if they had screwed up, V-Ger would've destroyed Earth.

Honestly, I'd watch these characters go to the grocery store together to stock up on canned goods if it were well done.

 

[bbailey861]

New villain or old, saving Earth or saving planet x or saving the universe or exploration, I'm just up for an entertaining movie every few years with characters I've enjoyed since childhood.

They don't need to reinvent the wheel.

Amen to this.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

New villain or old, saving Earth or saving planet x or saving the universe or exploration, I'm just up for an entertaining movie every few years with characters I've enjoyed since childhood.

They don't need to reinvent the wheel.

This.

I wouldn't have wanted to see Kirk saving Earth (or an earth or the entire universe) every week of TOS, though I would say it makes sense for the stakes to be higher in a feature film.

And, why can't there be exploration and something major at stake? TMP was more or less that way. They didn't know it right away, but if they had screwed up, V-Ger would've destroyed Earth.

Honestly, I'd watch these characters go to the grocery store together to stock up on canned goods if it were well done.

Although I don't intend to undermine your overall point, which I agree with, with respect to TMP, it was established in dialog between Kirk and Scott before Kirk boarded the Enterprise that the Earth itself was jeopardy, and any lingering doubts about that were dispelled when Epsilon IX was destroyed simply for scanning the cloud (as opposed to firing torpedoes on it).

Also, although it was anything but weekly, in TOS they did save the Earth, the Earth of 1968, in "Assignment: Earth." So, although one could argue that it wasn't typical to be saving the Earth in TOS, one couldn't argue that it wasn't real Star Trek to be doing that.

I'd stand in line to see the grocery store episode, too.

 

[eyeresist]

Starship Cap - Rosamond Pike (Number One)
UFP pres - Angelina Jolie
Bones ex wife - Megan Fox

Why not someone who can act?

 

[Sindatur]

Starship Cap - Rosamond Pike (Number One)
UFP pres - Angelina Jolie
Bones ex wife - Megan Fox

Why not someone who can act?

Angelina Jolie may have a lot of personally objectionable aspects, but, she is a stellar actress. And Rosamund Pike is no slouch herself, though, I definitely give you Megan Fox is nothing to write home about acting wise.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Starship Cap - Rosamond Pike (Number One)
UFP pres - Angelina Jolie
Bones ex wife - Megan Fox

Why not someone who can act?

Better yet, why not someone they can afford?

 

[MakeshiftPython]

RE: The whole thing about Cranston.

I know he's become a popular villain in fancasting, like being "perfect" for Lex Luthor because he's both bald and villainous. I actually thought he'd make a much better James Gordon than a villain. I feel the same about Trek. No, not playing James Gordon on Trek, but rather a captain or an admiral. Hell, I'd rather see him get his own show. If he's a villain, the biggest challenge will be to have me actually side with Kirk in that conflict.

 

[Christopher]

I know he's become a popular villain in fancasting, like being "perfect" for Lex Luthor because he's both bald and villainous. I actually thought he'd make a much better James Gordon than a villain.

He's actually played James Gordon, in the animated adaptation of Frank Miller's Batman: Year One -- ironically enough, opposite Gotham's Jim Gordon, Ben McKenzie, as Batman.