Star Trek XII New Information Thread

[Classic Fan]

Personally I'm not that thrilled about the Khan-as-the-villain-of-the-piece rumour stuff.

Fair enough, It can work, but it's been done before, twice. And I doubt, and hope, that JJ will not use Khan as a vehicle to sell the movie.


Obviously they are all rumours. We won't actually know until just before general release.

But Peter-motherfucking-Robocop-weller onboard.

Awesome.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It could be a crossover movie involving the Prime Universe which would also act as a reminder that this isn't the real Star Trek.

Anything even tangentially linked to the Prime universe is the real Star Trek.

Anything CBS/Paramount put out with "Star Trek" in the name is "real" Star Trek. They own it. They do what they want with it.

 

[JarodRussell]

I mean it's okay for some of the films to 3-d if it's called for by why do they have to make this new one 3-D.

Maybe it's called for?

Do you want ST movies to stay competitive in the current marketplace?

Oh my... I'm in favor of 3D, too, but that's such a lame argument.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It could be a crossover movie involving the Prime Universe which would also act as a reminder that this isn't the real Star Trek.

Except that it is.

The Prime Universe - that is, oldTrek - is done and gone.

 

[Gojira]

It could be a crossover movie involving the Prime Universe which would also act as a reminder that this isn't the real Star Trek.

How do you define "real Star Trek" and who has the authority to dictate to people that they must follow someone else's definition of what is "real Star Trek?"

 

[JarodRussell]

It could be a crossover movie involving the Prime Universe which would also act as a reminder that this isn't the real Star Trek.

How do you define "real Star Trek" and who has the authority to dictate to people that they must follow someone else's definition of what is "real Star Trek?"

Abrams, apparently.

 

[Gojira]

It could be a crossover movie involving the Prime Universe which would also act as a reminder that this isn't the real Star Trek.

How do you define "real Star Trek" and who has the authority to dictate to people that they must follow someone else's definition of what is "real Star Trek?"

Abrams, apparently.

I disagree. If someone doesn't want to consider Abrams version of Star Trek as "real Star Trek" they are free to have that opinion. I just don't think any of us can make that decision for another.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Since Abrams hasn't expressed an opinion of what's "real Star Trek" or not (and why would someone fret over awarding such a meaningless badge, anyway) it's rather moot.

What he does have is far more influence over the future of all Star Trek than anyone else for the foreseeable future.

 

[thumbtack]

who has the authority to dictate to people that they must follow someone else's definition of what is "real Star Trek?"

Extinct Fanboys?

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Anything CBS/Paramount put out with "Star Trek" in the name is "real" Star Trek. They own it. They do what they want with it.

And then we do what we want with it.

 

[bgdrewsif]

I have to admit, the idea of seeing the Enterprise fly towards the screen in 3D does sound pretty damn cool.

True funny story... my mom and dad were total drug-heads in the 70's (and I suspect my early childhood in the '80's too...) So they went with 2 friends to see the motion picture back in 1979 and being the baby boomers they were they went into the theater stoned and high on LSD or something... so when the Enterprise first jumped into warp with the starfield warping towards them in the theater my dad apparently crapped himself from the experience... That's quality special effects! (seriously, I almost stopped being a trek fan as a child after learning of this... almost...) Although I suppose that could be a bit trippy if whacked out on some horrible psychedelic drug-bender... Hard to believe my dad turned 65 this year... and sees being a senior citizen as a new excuse to get stoned...

To this day I still can not watch TMP and see the Enterprise go into warp without bursting out laughing...

 

[Enterprise is Great]

We need more info again...I want some new rumors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Skywalker]

Rumors are easy. Anyone can start a rumor. We can start one right here if we wanted to.

 

[controlfreak]

I will be appearing in the next Star Trek film.

 

[Hythlodeus]

Rumors are easy. Anyone can start a rumor. We can start one right here if we wanted to.

Speaking of rumors, I've heard that Peter Wellers CEO will be a

Spoiler: Peter Wellers part

Shoggoth Lord

and the big bad villain of the movie is indeed

Spoiler: villain

Great Cthulhu

himself.

 

[malchya]

Oh, good lord! You made me pass coffee through my nose! Not only painful, but wasteful as well! Perhaps we should all sit around JJ's office and chant "Hastur".

 

[Therin of Andor]

Are you suggesting likely viewers won't go to see it if it's only released in 2-D?

I'm suggesting that it seems to be a current public perception that big blockbuster movies now come in 3D.

Or is it that exaggerated 3-D ticket prices are now necessary for any film to be seen as financially successful?

Many films with tiny budgets are financially successful. But Paramount seemingly wants financially successful series of blockbusters for JJ's Star Trek.

I'm in favor of 3D, too, but that's such a lame argument.

Why is that so "lame"?

What is the current fascination with 3D if not to invigorate the cinema-going experience in ways that are superior to watching at home, and to bring in a little extra cash per customer, too? And the current wave of 3D films seem to be faring much better than previous attempted waves, such as the era of "House of Wax", followed by the era of "Jaws 3D".

 

[Hythlodeus]

What is the current fascination with 3D if not to invigorate the cinema-going experience in ways that are superior to watching at home, and to bring in a little extra cash per customer, too? And the current wave of 3D films seem to be faring much better than previous attempted waves, such as the era of "House of Wax", followed by the era of "Jaws 3D".

since the current 3D wave adds nothing to the experience in most cases other than headaches and is annoying for a majority of potential viewers, the only answer to the question "why keep they use it?" is clearly "because it decreases the possibilities of bootleg copies." this is the one and only reason, besides ridiculous high ticket prices, why 3d is popular among filmstudios

 

[Set Harth]

Many films with tiny budgets are financially successful.

What do budgets have to do with ticket prices?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

since the current 3D wave adds nothing to the experience in most cases other than headaches and is annoying for a majority of potential viewers...

Neither of these things is actually true, though - you're flat-out wrong.

The number of people who are made physically uncomfortable by 3D is a small minority, and the experience of watching a movie in 3D is clearly preferred by millions of viewers worldwide (the only argument to be made for declining interest is domestic ticket sales in the U.S.).

The reason the trend continues is simple, unhappily so for folks who dislike 3D: the studios make more money, because so many people choose 3D over 2D.