No sarcasm intended, I'm glad that you enjoy them. I don't.
Well, definitely no J.J. Abrams for Trek 4
- Thread starter PixelMagic
- Start date
I'm a half-full glass kinda guy so... too bad for Star Wars, but great for Star Trek! 
What makes you think Paramount will even start working on nuSTIV (or STXIV) until ST: D has finished it's run?
My point, if and when paramount is ready to do another Kelvin Universe Star Trek feature; JJ Abrams will have finished co-writing, producing, directing; and probably have released Star Wars Episode IX (assuming the deal with Disney is successfully finalized.)
My point, if and when paramount is ready to do another Kelvin Universe Star Trek feature; JJ Abrams will have finished co-writing, producing, directing; and probably have released Star Wars Episode IX (assuming the deal with Disney is successfully finalized.)
)
True enough. I'm just disappointed - I saw Star Wars 13 times at the cinema when it came out - it was a life changing experience for the teen me. I've loved it ever since, even allowing for episodes 1-3.People have different tastes. It is what makes life interesting.
I didn't like Ep.VII and I didn't like his Treks. I haven't liked the other JJ movies I've seen but loved Rogue One. I'm not expecting much from Ep.VIII but have hope. More than I do for IX.
Let's hope I have to eat my words.
Exactly. The OP article doesn't even mention Star Trek, nor has the director of STXIV even been announced, so I don't understand what the basis of this thread is at all.
Exactly. JJ is a big name now. Almost Spielberg big. Having him finish his Trek saga could be a bigger draw than some other director. I still don't think a JJ Trek 4 would hit $1 billion or anything, but maybe $500 mil if it was an epic story.
You know, I hear Colin Trevorrow is free for a directing gig at the moment...
I've found that as I've gotten older, I have less and less of those life changing experiences. I'm struggling for enthusiasm for Discovery right now, even though I believe it will be pretty good. It is just harder to impress 45 year old me than it was to impress 10 year old me.
In my case, I don't think it is the creators, I think it is me. Many, many things in life now have a "been there, done that" feel to them. For a lot of years, I loved the NFL. Now? I rarely even glance at it.
I don't particularly care who directs ST4, just so long as there IS a ST4. How are things looking on that point, BTW?
I have a feeling that after the urban legend that stid was a flop, I guess now we have the urban legend that beyond was the most successful movie of this reboot and that Lin&Pegg saved the reboot from its demise. At least this is the impression one gets when reading some of these "no JJ is good for trek. Bring beyond's team back' comments.
The denial is strong.
We have differing opinions. I think the Abrams directed movies, especially STID, are really boring.
You're talking about what is financially successful, and they are talking about which movies are more enjoyable. There's no denial, you're just not agreeing on the definition of a successful movie. I'm definitely in the camp that likes Beyond way more than the other two, BUT, as long as JJ was given a good script, I am confident in his abilities to deliver the a good film. The problem with the first two movies weren't J.J. Abrams, but Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof.
I don't think any of the Abrams movies (Trek, Wars) could ever live up to the hype that came with them. Personally, I loved the pacing of the Abrams films. As a long time fan, I didn't need things explained to me. I wanted to jump into the action and go, go, go.
You know, I hear Colin Trevorrow is free for a directing gig at the moment...
Yes, but often 'financially successful' and 'enjoyable' are two ingredients of the same recipe that can't go without the other. In this case, beyond wasn't as financially successful as the first two because it wasn't as enjoyable for the audience as the first two were.
Or why you think people watched the first two and made them more successful? Audience likes it=money. So the assertion that beyond is inherently more enjoyable than the first two is a bit far-fetched when contrasted by that simple fact.
A different matter is people finding beyond enjoyable because it's funny and 'safe'. But here you get in the critics giving it tiepid/mixed reviews territory. Everything, IMO, this trek needs is the opposite of how beyond got perceived, even in some of the positive reviews, because that perception gives no future to this trek. It's a good perception for a standalone movie, but not for one ending a trilogy and that should make people want to see more..make people feel like there needs to be more.
I agree. I'm simply saying that for some Trekkies...
Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness did not feel like Star Trek = General audience liked it more because it wasn't too nerdy but Trekkies felt betrayed.
Star Trek Beyond = General audience hated it because it felt too much like Star Trek. Trekkies liked it better.
You're talking about general audience success, and they were talking about their own enjoyment. Yes, the general audience has to be appealed to for success, of course.
Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness did not feel like Star Trek = General audience liked it more because it wasn't too nerdy but Trekkies felt betrayed.
Star Trek Beyond = General audience hated it because it felt too much like Star Trek. Trekkies liked it better.
You're talking about general audience success, and they were talking about their own enjoyment. Yes, the general audience has to be appealed to for success, of course.
wait, where'd you get this from? it has an A- cinemascore, yes down from the As of 2009 and into darkness, but i really didn't think general audiences rejected beyond because they didn't like it.
But this just doesn't gel, even with the result of polls from this very forum where both movies (2009, Into Darkness) scored very well. I'd say we are mostly Trek fans here.
And both films felt like Star Trek to me.
Similar threads
