I'd say 3, but if you include Shinzon's plot then 4.
Star Trek XII
- Thread starter cybersoldier
- Start date
I'd say 3, but if you include Shinzon's plot then 4.
it was . in the fifties. the movie "the enemy below".that episode was based on that film.
Marvelous movie. Robert Mitchum is great, and the similarities between the U-Boat characters and those who show up in "Balance" is...remarkable. Sort of.
A somewhat less widely noticed Trek influence (at least that I'm aware of) is the relationship of the sub commander played by Clark Gable and his executive officer (Burt Lancaster) in "Run Silent, Run Deep" and that of Kirk and Decker in ST:TMP.
Both directed by Robert Wise.
ST2009 is the real Star Trek timeline now.
I always thought a Trek movie with the Doomsday Machine would be pretty awesome if executed properly.
Lightinspire
Lieutenant Commander
Bring in the Guardian of Forever, a sure fire way of bringing Kirk back sensibly.
Actual total 4.
hellsgate, no offense, but I've now read three of your posts and none of them make any sense to me in light of the topic here. Aren't we discussing actual possibilities for a 12th Star Trek film? What do bluegills (weren't those the Conspiracy aliens?) have to do with Dyson spheres or "Night Terrors"? And how would any of this interest a paying audience?
I was wondering the same exact thing.I'd be all for a remake of The Doomsday Machine.
Who would have the acting chops to play Matt Decker? Mighty big shoes to fill.
If you're gonna remake a TOS ep as the next film, then Doomsday Machine would be a good choice.
What others? I'd kinda like to see Arena done as a remake. Or Devil In The Dark (make it more scary and Aliens-esque). Balance Of Terror would be good (although, using Romulans as the villains again? Maybe not)
What others? I'd kinda like to see Arena done as a remake. Or Devil In The Dark (make it more scary and Aliens-esque). Balance Of Terror would be good (although, using Romulans as the villains again? Maybe not)
If there isn't a reset button, and Ambassador Spock either continues to be around, mind-melds with someone, or merely passes along some key details of things, then it seems like the next movie might deal with events surrounding any of a number of things that the Federation might try to go ahead and deal with ahead of time. A few that come to mind:
1. Dealing with the Botany Bay.
2. Securing the Guardian of Forever.
3. Preparing for the Borg.
4. Beginning exploration of the wormhole at Bajor and/or preventing Bajor's occupation.
5. Dealing with the Doomsday Machine.
6. Making First Contact with any of a number of worlds that would have eventually become Federation member worlds, with unanticipated consequences - they accidentally piss off Betazed, or Trill, or even the Binar....
1. Dealing with the Botany Bay.
2. Securing the Guardian of Forever.
3. Preparing for the Borg.
4. Beginning exploration of the wormhole at Bajor and/or preventing Bajor's occupation.
5. Dealing with the Doomsday Machine.
6. Making First Contact with any of a number of worlds that would have eventually become Federation member worlds, with unanticipated consequences - they accidentally piss off Betazed, or Trill, or even the Binar....
kitsune
Captain
If Zachary Quinto doesn't mind playing two roles, they could get Sylar to remove Spock's brain this time.I think it should be Star Trek VII: Rise of the Sheliak...or Star Trek VII: The Sheliak Menace!
Either that or a feature film remake of Spock's Brain!
It just occurred to me that Sylar sounds like a valid Vulcan name...
"The Balance of Terror" as a feature idea
http://july.fixedreference.org/en/20040724/wikipedia/Balance_of_Terror
Since it is an old story I don't think it would be made into a feature film with the Trek 2.0 crew.
Watch "The Hunt for Red October" and "Das Boot". To me "The Balance of Terror" was a submarine movie set on the Enterprise.
The Enemy Below's plot summary from imdb.com:
http://july.fixedreference.org/en/20040724/wikipedia/Balance_of_Terror
Since it is an old story I don't think it would be made into a feature film with the Trek 2.0 crew.
Star Trek XII in 3D
Shot in 3-D like:
2007 'Beowulf'
2008: "Journey To The Center Of The Earth"
2009: "Avatar" [December 2009] and 13 other 3-D films.
but also like the film "300" with a lot of greenscreen and CGI work.
They would be able to create the entire bridge and interiors of scenes set aboard the NCC-1701 Enterprise in CGI but with depth.
We all know the Star Trek universe is fictional but as fans it would feel so more realistic if we saw it projected in 3-D in a cinema. It would give the feeling as if we were on the bridge of the Enterprise.
Most movies these days have a lot of fast edits. When you work in 3-D it is not needed. wider shots with the actors moving around the set acting allows you to feel where they are on the bridge.
They would still be able to move the camera and have the CGI background move in the right perspective with some data capture of camera motion.
Pros: They build the CGI bridge, engineering, and other set models once and can be used for another feature or for a miniseries done with greenscreen.
Even if they build a real model of the ship it could be shot as liveaction in 3-D for less full-on 3D-CGI model renderings.
Without discussing the content of the films I mentioned could we discuss the depth and added realism by using 3-D for Star Trek XII?
Shot in 3-D like:
2007 'Beowulf'
2008: "Journey To The Center Of The Earth"
2009: "Avatar" [December 2009] and 13 other 3-D films.
but also like the film "300" with a lot of greenscreen and CGI work.
They would be able to create the entire bridge and interiors of scenes set aboard the NCC-1701 Enterprise in CGI but with depth.
We all know the Star Trek universe is fictional but as fans it would feel so more realistic if we saw it projected in 3-D in a cinema. It would give the feeling as if we were on the bridge of the Enterprise.
Most movies these days have a lot of fast edits. When you work in 3-D it is not needed. wider shots with the actors moving around the set acting allows you to feel where they are on the bridge.
They would still be able to move the camera and have the CGI background move in the right perspective with some data capture of camera motion.
Pros: They build the CGI bridge, engineering, and other set models once and can be used for another feature or for a miniseries done with greenscreen.
Even if they build a real model of the ship it could be shot as liveaction in 3-D for less full-on 3D-CGI model renderings.
Without discussing the content of the films I mentioned could we discuss the depth and added realism by using 3-D for Star Trek XII?
Similar threads
