What Do You Want To See In The Next Film?
- Thread starter TRON JA307020
- Start date
I also think they need to put McCoy in the next one way more and bring the famous Spock/McCoy battles back. Im tired of the new big three of Kirk,Spock and Uhura. Uhura brings nothing to trio.
I want a good old fashioned show down with the Klingons (preferably Kor).
Yes, can we completely get away from Earth/Federation being in danger?
Yeah, that is an overdone plot device.
I want to see the crew encounter a cosmic anomaly that is essentially one ginormous lens flare; and it turns out to be the source of all lens flares in this reality.
Kidding, but honestly, I've wanted two main things ever since I watched my first Trek movie:
-true exploration into the unknown
-a gigantic, balls-to-the-wall fleet battle
Kidding, but honestly, I've wanted two main things ever since I watched my first Trek movie:
-true exploration into the unknown
-a gigantic, balls-to-the-wall fleet battle
Star Trek Into Lightflares
Amen! Especially with Klingon battlecruisers!Cyke101 said:
Well, I'm thinking something huge like 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Though that wouldn't fit with the first two Abrams movies.
Kor
It wouldn't necessarily *need* to fit with the first two Abrams movies. After all, TMP doesn't fit with TWOK and TSFS, so in a way, it's kind of a reverse.
Though I imagine that, had Interstellar fared better critically, that would open up a bit more leeway for the next Trek movie to also be a little more cerebral in that vein.
There would be a way to blend/balance cerebral with action to try and satisfy both sides of Trek appreciation....but it would have to be a cautious balance. After all, you can't please 100 percent of the people 100 percent of the time.
The big problem is that the first two of the Abrams Era Trek's are big budget blockbusters that did pretty well. A 2001-esque Star Trek movie with little to no action is not going to do the box office of the first two. It will only appeal to the niche Trek viewers and not the wider audience. A blockbuster will appeal to the wider audience (not necessarily the "lowest common denominator" as some will no doubt groan and moan), and potentially guarantee another Trek film.
If the Trek films were meant only to appeal to the Trek goers, with some effort toward a wider audience (like TOS and TNG did), the producers could lower their expectations for box office, and produce sequels accordingly, but again, with lower expectations.
But Trek has gone the blockbuster route. Nothing short of blockbuster numbers will do for returns. Sadly, the cerebral film doesn't fit into that view.
You could make a film on par with Star Trek The Motion Picture in terms of cerebral, or slow pace....it might do well in its first couple of days, but then word of mouth gets out....."It's boring." Roddeberry dogmatists might be happy, but there aren't enough to give it the numbers it needs to keep up with the first two films. ST TMP was a financial success, but a critical and fan pan. The same would likely happen with an overly cerebral new film.
Personal view and opinion only. Take with a grain of salt...or perhaps the whole darned shaker.
The big problem is that the first two of the Abrams Era Trek's are big budget blockbusters that did pretty well. A 2001-esque Star Trek movie with little to no action is not going to do the box office of the first two. It will only appeal to the niche Trek viewers and not the wider audience. A blockbuster will appeal to the wider audience (not necessarily the "lowest common denominator" as some will no doubt groan and moan), and potentially guarantee another Trek film.
If the Trek films were meant only to appeal to the Trek goers, with some effort toward a wider audience (like TOS and TNG did), the producers could lower their expectations for box office, and produce sequels accordingly, but again, with lower expectations.
But Trek has gone the blockbuster route. Nothing short of blockbuster numbers will do for returns. Sadly, the cerebral film doesn't fit into that view.
You could make a film on par with Star Trek The Motion Picture in terms of cerebral, or slow pace....it might do well in its first couple of days, but then word of mouth gets out....."It's boring." Roddeberry dogmatists might be happy, but there aren't enough to give it the numbers it needs to keep up with the first two films. ST TMP was a financial success, but a critical and fan pan. The same would likely happen with an overly cerebral new film.
Personal view and opinion only. Take with a grain of salt...or perhaps the whole darned shaker.
Last edited:
There would be a way to blend/balance cerebral with action to try and satisfy both sides of Trek appreciation....but it would have to be a cautious balance. After all, you can't please 100 percent of the people 100 percent of the time.
The big problem is that the first two of the Abrams Era Trek's are big budget blockbusters that did pretty well. A 2001-esque Star Trek movie with little to no action is not going to do the box office of the first two. It will only appeal to the niche Trek viewers and not the wider audience. A blockbuster will appeal to the wider audience (not necessarily the "lowest common denominator" as some will no doubt groan and moan), and potentially guarantee another Trek film.
If the Trek films were meant only to appeal to the Trek goers, with some effort toward a wider audience (like TOS and TNG did), the producers could lower their expectations for box office, and produce sequels accordingly, but again, with lower expectations.
But Trek has gone the blockbuster route. Nothing short of blockbuster numbers will do for returns. Sadly, the cerebral film doesn't fit into that view.
You could make a film on par with Star Trek The Motion Picture in terms of cerebral, or slow pace....it might do well in its first couple of days, but then word of mouth gets out....."It's boring." Roddeberry dogmatists might be happy, but there aren't enough to give it the numbers it needs to keep up with the first two films. ST TMP was a financial success, but a critical and fan pan. The same would likely happen with an overly cerebral new film.
Personal view and opinion only. Take with a grain of salt...or perhaps the whole darned shaker.
Totally agree, as much as I love The Motion Picture, you don't hire the director of The Fast and the Furious movies if you want a slow, talky sci-fi epic. These movies are blockbuster-Trek and I'm fine with that. We may never see this level of cash thrown at big screen Trek again, so I go into these movies wanting 2 hours of balls-out visually stunning entertainment, and so far the new films have delivered just that.
There would be a way to blend/balance cerebral with action to try and satisfy both sides of Trek appreciation....but it would have to be a cautious balance. After all, you can't please 100 percent of the people 100 percent of the time.
The big problem is that the first two of the Abrams Era Trek's are big budget blockbusters that did pretty well. A 2001-esque Star Trek movie with little to no action is not going to do the box office of the first two. It will only appeal to the niche Trek viewers and not the wider audience. A blockbuster will appeal to the wider audience (not necessarily the "lowest common denominator" as some will no doubt groan and moan), and potentially guarantee another Trek film.
If the Trek films were meant only to appeal to the Trek goers, with some effort toward a wider audience (like TOS and TNG did), the producers could lower their expectations for box office, and produce sequels accordingly, but again, with lower expectations.
But Trek has gone the blockbuster route. Nothing short of blockbuster numbers will do for returns. Sadly, the cerebral film doesn't fit into that view.
You could make a film on par with Star Trek The Motion Picture in terms of cerebral, or slow pace....it might do well in its first couple of days, but then word of mouth gets out....."It's boring." Roddeberry dogmatists might be happy, but there aren't enough to give it the numbers it needs to keep up with the first two films. ST TMP was a financial success, but a critical and fan pan. The same would likely happen with an overly cerebral new film.
Personal view and opinion only. Take with a grain of salt...or perhaps the whole darned shaker.
Totally agree, as much as I love The Motion Picture, you don't hire the director of The Fast and the Furious movies if you want a slow, talky sci-fi epic. These movies are blockbuster-Trek and I'm fine with that. We may never see this level of cash thrown at big screen Trek again, so I go into these movies wanting 2 hours of balls-out visually stunning entertainment, and so far the new films have delivered just that.
Yeah, I love TMP as well, and everything I said above is with deepest respect for that film. It was special to me because it was the return of Star Trek....back then, when the Trek market could sustain off the numbers that TMP and TWOK drew.
But this is the era of the new Star Trek, and it is a blockbuster era. It is also, for yourself, myself, and clearly many others, the return of Star Trek yet again. I feel like that 10 year old kid I was back in '79.
how can tos McCoy fit in this 'trio' when reboot Kirk essentially has his role already? He's the one who has arguments with Spock about logic vs emotion, he's the one with the banter with Spock.
as for Uhura, the mistake some fans keep making is assuming she's replacing McCoy, but she doesn't have his role. Kirk is more 'the McCoy' here than Uhura. If anything, Uhura seems to have more the role that original Kirk had: she's the middle and balance between Spock's logic and Kirk's emotion and can connect with both because of that.
nevertheless, it's an entirely different dynamic anyway because they changed the protagonist.
In the original, Kirk was the only protagonist and Spock and McCoy served as his best friends and sort of 'angel and devil' at his sides.
The reboot is, instead, about both Kirk and Spock where McCoy and Uhura are the best friend/significant other of the protagonists.
The Kirk, Uhura, Spock trio isn't really about Kirk 'having' Uhura and Spock as friends, as much as it's about having a bromance (K/S) a romance (S/U) and a male/female friendship (Kirk/Uhura).
I dunno how someone can realistically think that all the focus of a modern reboot should be put on 3, and I mean 3, male characters only just because a show made in the sexist 60s was like that.
I think they can make the characters a tad less one dimensional and get rid of this, in my opinion, stupid obsession with 'roles' that would reduce the characters to a caricature of their tos counterparts.
It's not really Kirk, Spock or Uhura who should change IMO It's McCoy's character who should find his place in THIS story and context and as long as fans insist in wanting to make him totally like tos McCoy, I think he'll never find it unless they go backwards and dramatically change Kirk and Spock (as well as their dynamic).
Maybe it's the difference between arguing and bickering/one-ups-manship. If there is going to be a multi-year in-universe gap from the last movie to the next, the character of Kirk could be seen to have matured and the arguing with Spock subsides, and there could be less of a adversary relationship, and even more of a partnership.
If they also lose (please please) the aspect of Uhura being the high maintenance bitchy girlfriend then in a somewhat strange way McCoy could take over that role, pointing out Spock's flaws, mistakes and pushing him with points of view that he obviously doesn't see. Which would be a return to a form of the friendship they shared in the original series.
Question then is where would this leave Uhura? Can the writers create a story formula that permits four prominent characters at the same time, while not turning Scotty, Sulu, Chekov or Marcus into Travis Mayweather.
Shatner as Tiberius Kirk... That could work.
Crewman: (as Shatner steps on the Enterprise) I'm sorry, sir. Who are you?
Shatner: I'm Kirk. T. Kirk.
Shatner: I'm Kirk. T. Kirk.
Crewman: (as Shatner steps on the Enterprise) I'm sorry, sir. Who are you?
Shatner: I'm Kirk. T. Kirk.
Later:
Crewman: *ow! ow!* Captain, he *ow!* keeps hitting me with his *ow!* cane!
Shatner: I... *whack* have had ....*whack* enough of... *big whack* YOU!
A saucer separation - followed by the destruction of the drive section.
<end of film> the saved saucer connects up to an all new not butt ugly star drive section and flies away into the unknown.
<end of film> the saved saucer connects up to an all new not butt ugly star drive section and flies away into the unknown.
Maybe it's the difference between arguing and bickering/one-ups-manship. If there is going to be a multi-year in-universe gap from the last movie to the next, the character of Kirk could be seen to have matured and the arguing with Spock subsides, and there could be less of a adversary relationship, and even more of a partnership.
If they also lose (please please) the aspect of Uhura being the high maintenance bitchy girlfriend then in a somewhat strange way McCoy could take over that role, pointing out Spock's flaws, mistakes and pushing him with points of view that he obviously doesn't see. Which would be a return to a form of the friendship they shared in the original series.
I love the fact that if Mccoy or Kirk argue with Spock expecting him to be human and see everything like them, and don't respect his vulcan side (not alieness, because in the story he isn't more alien than them, right?) this is interesting writing, good drama, character development.. something absolutely needed and that we can't do without. Yet, Uhura, someone with whom he has a relationship with - unlike kirk and mccoy who are still strangers for Spock - can't 'challenge Spock and point out his flaws, mistakes and push him with points of view that he obviously doesn't see' because if she disagrees with him ONCE she's a 'high maintenance bitchy girlfriend'
She's a woman, Mccoy is a man. Seems legit.
I guess some people have a thing for 'high maintenance bitchy FRIENDS' because, then, this is exactly what original Mccoy and nu Kirk are with Spock.
I want crazy gravity scenes. The 2013 videogame may have been extremely flawed, but some of the spacewalk scenes and gravity tricks were fantastic.
A few are seen here:
[YT]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70Im1Sqbbcc[/yt]
A few are seen here:
[YT]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70Im1Sqbbcc[/yt]
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
