It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

JJ Abrams Star Trek 2 Script?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Phantom traveller
 


I didn't even need the internet to reach the "no life" status.
Now I'm trying to get my life back before I really do lose it.




posted on May, 8 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Phantom traveller
 


Been playing STO since beta, even bought the lifetime before they went FTP.

Don't play too much anymore, everyone in my fleet quit due to Cryptic Studios and their handling of the game left a sour taste in my mouth.

(Do they have a Z axis yet? Or is it still boats in space?)

Lastly, anyone else botherd by calling the "real" Spock "Spock Prime"?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


Starship combat is definately 3d.

It is not on a 2d plain like Starfleet Command.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by adigregorio
 


Starship combat is definately 3d.

It is not on a 2d plain like Starfleet Command.


So a ship can do a full loop finally?

Or is it still restricted to a 70 degree climb/dive? (aka boats in space)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainLJB
reply to post by Phantom traveller
 


I didn't even need the internet to reach the "no life" status.
Now I'm trying to get my life back before I really do lose it.


Before STO i had a life.When the game was released i started playing,but i quit the moment i saw how addictive it was and i swore i will never play again.Now after all this time,after i broke up with my boyfriend,i started playing again.NO LIFE status reached in no time


reply to post by adigregorio
 




Lastly, anyone else botherd by calling the "real" Spock "Spock Prime"?

It bothered me in the beginning,but now i got used to it.Before i watch the movie i was thinking i will never like the new actors,there is only one Kirk and one Spock(Shatner/Nimoy).But i liked the movie and now i think that they were the best possible choises(apart from Uhura-I HATE HER).



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phantom traveller
It bothered me in the beginning,but now i got used to it.Before i watch the movie i was thinking i will never like the new actors,there is only one Kirk and one Spock(Shatner/Nimoy).But i liked the movie and now i think that they were the best possible choises(apart from Uhura-I HATE HER).


You know I never say this enough, so before I say "this" I must thank you for reminding me!

The actors!

Any ill will I have towards the new Trek is only because of the damage it caused the original versions. IE If they have a new universe, then "the one I enjoy" becomes "one I enjoyed. Only because "in with the new, out with the old."

The actors did a great job, except for Uhura. (No offense, but she was the weakest actress among the cast. (Well the green lady was pretty opaque (heh) too.)

I have liked the fellow that did Dr. McCoy ever since I saw him in DOOM. (B-Movies are a guilty pleasure of mine.) I saw him in something else recently, he was ultra young too. He was the best thing in the movie, espcially since I remember he was in it and not the movie itself!

New Spock (HA!) well, I have to say he gave a better appearance of what a Vulcuman would act like. Again, no offense to Nimoy. He always came of as "full Vulcan" to me, including the TOS which would have been before his "extra Vulcan training".

I guess I should say "Think Tuvok" But then I think, Tuvok had more emotions in him than Spock did with Kirk. Half-breed!

Shaun-of-the-Dead, is Shaun-of-the-Dead. The only thing else that needs to be said, Mr. Doohan you are greatly missed. But even you have to admit, this guy is funny! And a great actor, to boot! This had to be the only thing I looked forward to in the old new Trek movie. Of course, what character had the least amount of screentime?

Checkov, um I won't go there.

Nurse Chapel: Cameo's are not as awesome as Camaros. And considering that Majels death was fresh at that time, they should have given the wife's character a bigger role. Hell she was a love interest to Spock for a bit...Oh wait, can't have any "racial growth" if both the characters are the same race. Vulcan and Human


So yeah, the actors are pretty good. I am still waiting for Sulu to do something actingwise that stands out, he was great in "Flashforward"!! C'mon, do I have to make you pass out to get some good acting?

Lastly, all I want in a movie is to feel like this after a good scene:

(Too bad that was the only scene like that in that movie!!)

Trek used to be able to do that, at least once per movie. Even the TNG (Next Generation) movies were able to capture that "feeling". This new one did as well, but again "only once":


(And this one is sad
)

EDIT (To Celebrate!)
Well, the Karl Urban film I could not remember was bugging me somthing fierce. (Karl Urban = Dr. McCoy) So I cheated: CURSE YOU IMDB! Now I will never prosper, and without prospering what's the point of living long? (Ouch)

Anyway, the film was: The Bourne Supremacy

I must note, I did not remember the film. But not out of mediocrity, but because I watched all three in that series one after another


Again, one of the best things in the film. Now that I know what film it was, I smile at remembering what anus he was....

EDIT2 (More celebration!)
GHOST SHIP!

THAT was the movie he was in when he was young! If you are familiar with that movie, he is one of the fellows that eats the "beans"
(Dark hair, and a beard if I remember right.)

Anyway, sorry, I hate forgetting films only to have them dance on the tip of my tounge. (Didn't cheat for this one!)


edit on 5/9/2012 by adigregorio because: Cheaters never prosper, but can they live long; would they want to?

edit on 5/9/2012 by adigregorio because: Good times, c'mon!



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


I haven't tried full loops, but I have been above other targets and I've been attacked from both above and below.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


When they are above you, can you go "up only" (Or do you have a restriction to how far you can point the nose of your ship?)

IE If the Klingon is directly above you, can you point your ship straight at them and go. Or do you have to "spiral up" to get to their plane?

PS: I do believe there is an STO thread, as to keep this one topic friendly.

PPS: I still stick to my last post in regards to the original new Trek, and the new Trek 2. Consindering WoK is debated to be the "best" trek film, it will be interesting to see how this one stacks up.

(Just imagine if Wrath of Khan (WoK) had been "The Motion Picture", Star Wars would have been Star Whats?)
edit on 5/9/2012 by adigregorio because: (plan? TO plane?) and (Whats? TO Whats?) )



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 



The actors did a great job, except for Uhura. (No offense, but she was the weakest actress among the cast. (Well the green lady was pretty opaque (heh) too.)

Nichols is a beautiful and sweet woman and a good actress.Zaldana had the attitude:i'm super hot and i know it and that destroyed everything in the role.Uhura was beautiful,she knew it,but she never rub it to our face.
The sweetness of this woman and that amazing melodic voice was lost with Zaldana.



I was watching (AGAIN) recently "Star Trek of Gods and men" and although Nichelle Nichols is old,she still was amazing.



I have liked the fellow that did Dr. McCoy ever since I saw him in DOOM.

Karl Urban is a very good actor.You might remember him from Lord of the rings as well.







New Spock


He was the best choise.I can't think of anyone else that could actually play Spock and be good at it.

Simon Pegg is awesome as Scotty.Best quote is the one with Archer's dog...


Scotty: That's what I'm talking about! How do you think I wound up here? Had a little debate with my instructor on relativistic physics and how it pertains to subspace travel. He seemed to think that the range of transporting something like a... like a grapefruit was limited to about 100 miles. I told him that I could not only beam a grapefruit from one planet to the adjacent planet in the same system - which is easy, by the way - I could do it with a life form. So, I tested it out on Admiral Archer's prized beagle.

James T. Kirk: Wait, I know that dog. What happened to it?

Scotty: I'll tell you when it reappears. Ahem. I don't know, I do feel guilty about that.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


Karl Urban (the Doc) played Vaako in the Chronicle of Riddick, which is an awesome role. Probably one of my favorites.

A small role in Return of the King, and a hand full of other things.
edit on 9-5-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainLJB
 


The future is bad because someone doesn't like black and white television?

What an absurd and quite frankly narcisstic thing to think that because someone doesn't care for a genre,that there is something wrong with them and the future.

I don't care for black and white shows, and all but one movie. Boo hoo.

Just because something is old, doesn't make it better which seems to be the rut you two are in, since you have spent a page polishing each other's bat'leths.

First off, to assume a 2010 movie is going to stick to 1960's ideals is your first mistake.

The structure has to change, the filming has to change, the acting has to change.

JJ did an excellent job of regenerating ST and bringing it into the 21st century with still a nod to TOS.

You really think a captain fighting an alien in a shiny green suit is going to appeal to anybody today?

So isntead of more prosthetics, the Romulans were completely reinvented, not given Beatles hair, still suffering from psychosis, and were made into a much better bad guy.

That is what needs to happen to ST.

No one is going to recreate TOS. Nor does anyone want them too. But after many chapters, it got the overhaul that it needed.

Just like TNG had TOS watchers crumpled in anxiety over its birth onto the scene, you guys are having the same reaction, over and over and over with each new escapade.

You guys need to read: Who Moved My Cheese



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
All I can say is... Wow! It's like I'm the only guy who hated Abrams' Trek 2009. Well, I guess this is as good a place as any to post up my little review of that particular movie. This comes straight from the chapter "Confessions of a Trekker" of my unpublished book about my (so-called) life. It's rather harsh but then again it's a rather harsh movie compared to the previous 10, now isn't it?

I'll throw it up (!) in the next post and hope it fits. Enjoy!



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Three years later and it's May 2009. The much-anticipated (mega-overhyped, ala "The Blair Witch Project" through the use of the Internet and all forms of media) Star Trek XI is released, simply known as "Star Trek" or "Star Trek 0" (I'd just as well call this zero "No Trek: From Hell It Came"). It was a kids' movie. Presumably Paramount viewed Trek as a has-been which had run its course. That was the attitude or message they had come to after ST X and after E, with the idiotic theory that only so many stories can be written and have been written, and only so many plots, and only so many...before recycling them over and over again. When you limit yourself to a small group of buddy writers, what do you expect, Paramount? Trek had been kept alive for Decades with Fan Input: fanzines and fan publications and Fan Imagination. You take the Fan Element out of it, split the booty between half a dozen guys in suits who only know movies and TV and NOT Science Fiction, you're going to get the Same recycled #. Worse, you're going to get it aimed at everyone But the Fans. The big brains at Paramount will never, ever understand this principle. It is simply beyond their grasp, like a fish in a bowl will never learn to climb a tree. The era of Prequels and Remakes was more potent than ever before with the likes of Batman being "rebooted" and TV series like Kolchak The Night Stalker, Hawii Five-O... Frank Herbert's son was also turning out plenty of "Dune" co-authored prequel novels (not that anyone connected with The Franchise had the intellect to read them, of course). Obviously some Paramount exec thought the future of Trek, if it was to have one, was to redo it with a younger cast and an all-new production team and writers. Young ones all around. Young ones where weren't old enough to be fans of TOS and perhaps only had a hint of Trek's philosophy and background--if even that... ST XI was the master-mind of J.J. Abrams, a young punk who was under two months old when the original series aired and still hadn't a clue about it to this very day because he never watched it (well, at least he was honest about That!). No problem: his dad's a TV producer, he has money coming out of his ass, so he gets awarded the job. Maybe he hasn't mentally developed beyond being two months old. It would explain a lot, like the hyperactive direction apparently aimed at an audience with no attention span whatsoever. Also worthy of lynching are Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci (both born in 1973, days or months Before the premiere of Star Trek TAS! Some 7 years Younger than Abrams!), co-writers and executive producers of this mess (infamously responsible for Hercules, Xena, Jack Of All Trades, and Transformers--just to name some of their familiar cartoonish faire). Kurtzman is the son-in-law of Nick Counter, attorney and President of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers for 27 years. Roberto Orci's stepsister is an airheaded actress named Courtney Ford, and stepbrother-in-law of actor/producer Brandon Routh, while his brother J.R. is a TV producer and story editor of like-minded series. All three are Obviously highly-qualified professionals behind the mass-marketed trash of the moron generation! Yeah, I was so curious about the mind-set of the background crew capable of conceiving such an insulting load-of-# that I just Had to research it. Their various projects are intertwined and interrelated, and all aimed at the ignorant masses of young people, or adults who never matured. They are responsible for today's over-hyped, over-rated, over-the-top "acted" movies which are jam-packed with product ads (money!), car chases/crashes, (loud!) noise/screaming, and gunfire/explosions/things falling/breaking in every scene, and (when there really is a brief moment of slow-down in action) the quintessential teenage sex jokes and bathroom "humor." These movies are not story-driven in the least, but are pure FX "eye candy" made to appeal to teens with short attention spans and no brains (a.k.a. the lowest common denominator). 100% pure mindless entertainment. The three multi-millionaires form a kind of Kirk-Spock-McCoy relationship but without any maturity or intelligence whatsoever; more like a trio of schoolyard toddlers from upper-crust families who are gifted with very expensive toys to play with--at the expense of the Adults surrounding them. If I could distill the worst-of-the-worst of today's filmmaking down, it would settle upon this trio of morons. Abrams draws inspiration from Star Wars and he bases Jim Kirk's character on a young Indiana Jones & Luke Skywalker--always getting into fights, joyriding, and rebelling against authority figures--essentially a juvenile delinquent here. And there are several "farm boy" jokes present here, too. Chris Pine plays Kirk and he admits to never even having watched TOS nor even William Shatner! Has ANYONE here?
How's that for casting! So Abrams just tells him to play Kirk "as a young Indy!" The other characters are worse off: half-baked cardboard cutouts that neither look, nor sound, nor act like the originals, yet forced to utter their unique catch-phrases on cue, (almost parodies of the originals). Throughout this farce I had to keep reminding myself "That guy is supposed to be Scotty." "This guy is supposed to be Chekov," etc. (the only characters spared this are Nurse Chapel and Yeoman Rand who don't appear in this film though Majel Barrett's voice is used briefly in one scene as the computer voice--spoken TNG-style, not TOS-style. One can only imagine who would have been chosen to play young blondes...Paris Hilton for one? Best not to even Think about it!). This aspect alone was embarrassing enough, while the plot is an absolute insult to fans and non-fans alike. To anyone with a piece of brain. Regardless of the flaws, the ten previous Star Trek movies were written by, and aimed at, Adults. That's not the case here. There is too much character stupidity going around for me to waste my time summarizing it all here, I'll just point out the "Spock and Uhura as lovers" subplot and be done with it. And I'll also mention an earlier subplot where Uhura does not get assigned to the Enterprise so she has a tantrum, and curses and bitches at Spock (her superior officer, incidentally) about it while at the Academy until she gets her way. This is not the Lt. Uhura I grew up watching on TV, in theaters, and reading about in countless novels.
Everyone connected with this film is New to Star Trek and is shows (Oh, Geoffrey Mandel is credited as an artist and Marc Okrand is credited for Vulcan and Romulan languages--but so is an unknown woman credited for being a science consultant--and none of this appears in the final film! There is No Science in this film! This mess should not be Called a "Science fiction" movie even! The Star Wars prequels at their very worst had far superior "Science" than anything to be found here.). Oh, Leonard Nimoy is present to reprise the older Spock character--but he's used as a token actor to somehow legitimize this film; a sort of passing-of-the-torch. With the few lines and scenes he's given, our Spock is truly wasted material.
He walks away at the end of the film with this hopeless attitude that the timeline's changed, that's that, so the hell with it.
I could just imagine the scripted line "May the Force be with you" scratched out and replaced at the last moment with "Live long and prosper" after a quick consultation with The Encyclopedia just to save face with any Trek fans who might be watching.
Star Trek history as we know it is thoroughly destroyed in this pathetic reboot. Everything is rebuilt from scratch--sets, props, uniforms, characters--without any intellectual guidance or brain cells, much less a shred of respect for Trek's long history... That was part of the Plan of course, since all Previous sets, costumes, props etc. from the 40-year-old franchise had been Auctioned Off three years ago. Now they can make all-new junk to feed the franchise's toy and merchandise vendors. This universe, we can all at least agree, is unquestionably an alternate timeline--or to be more honest, a complete reboot of Star Trek (30 years before TOS there were no ships like the U.S.S. Kelvin with Star Fleet Bold Extended lettering on the hull, a wacko NCC preceded by 0, an interior that looks to be a dimly-lit bombed-out factory more fitting for a ship from an "Aliens" movie, armed with Phasers which Treknically hadn't even been invented yet, and crewed by an unprecedented 800 in never-before-seen Star Fleet uniforms which bear Enterprise arrowhead insignias, manning a rough redress of the decades-Later film's Enterprise bridge--and what's Both of Kirk's parents doing aboard her!?!). One we're kind of stuck with it now in a permanent sort of way... That includes the destruction of the planet Vulcan, the death of Kirk's father, and the death of Spock's mother...all in a twisted timeline, compliments of a madman from the 24th Century (in reality, children from the early 21st Century). That's right, I Did say the destruction of the planet Vulcan: one of those "so what?" throwaway subplots that's treated like an everyday occurance by all characters in this film! The death of a single, throway "red shirt" in TOS held far more emotional impact. (I still get choked up over Yeoman Thompson in "By Any Other Name"--only Shatner could do that with a hand of sand!). The way I see it, destroying Vulcan was symbolizing Abrams' literal destruction of Logic and Reason in this movie and, presumably, to eliminate these qualities from its sequel.
Let me put it to you another way: Everything Star Trek ever published--all manuals, books, and previous movies and series (except maybe for E, of all fragging series!) are now NON-CANON--If you give this film any sort of legitimacy! Having a ship come from the future to alter the timeline is the ultimate excuse to free these Non-Fan jerks from any form of accountability to 40 years of Trek continuity, and allow them to do whatever the hell they want with Their newly-spawned "Trek" universe. With Trek history wiped clean, they can write future movies any way they wish. Nice trick. It's rather akin to the Coming of Okuda and how He made all the FASA and Tech Fandom works Disappear via the introduction of the "Canon" Mentality--then cleverly put the blame on Paramount Pictures and/or "Gene wanted it this way." Maybe Modern Trek fans will now understand what I went through, futily fought against, and lost. You could say that this is the final turning of the tables on Canonheaded Fans. The masses are very happy with the movie however, because it's sufficiently dumbed-down to attract new fans to the new franchise (probably the under two-month-old newbies--it Does shine as a children's film!), which was its sole purpose. Everyone is so thrilled with CGI here, there and everywhere, with rocking cameras, motion blur, and especially with Abrams' "magic" of using lens flares galore (literally standing on the sets shining hand-held flashlights into camera lenses to give it that "real" taste of reality!) which for some inexplicable reason is applauded as the mark of a film-making genius! "J.J. Abrams it the new Steven Spielberg!" The exterior space visuals, notably the villain's super-sized ship, are also nothing much but a blur in my memory. For all the money they've wasted, they probably could have just filmed some cheap plastic models and swooshed the camera about them for the final visuals remain the same. The rebuilt bridge looks like a cross between an Apple store and Progressive.com's store seen in TV commercials (minus Flo, though give her a uniform and that airhead would fit right in just fine), complete with a window in place of a viewscreen, and heads-up displays. With Abrams' fixation on Star Wars, it's a wonder there aren't any droids in this movie (Flobot would also fit right in), or even guys manning gun turrets. There is very little acknowledgement of previous designs, much less design lineage. Engineering is this bloated area of raw piping and tankage--literally filmed in a brewery so the cast and crew could get free beer (I kid you not!). It neither looks nor sounds like a Star Trek movie, and unquestionably is the most juvenile Trek film ever. Staff the Enterprise with teens and young adults who haven't even graduated from the Academy, and just let 'em do their thing. Completely ignore the chain-of-command--No, ignore Rank itself, for the kid with the biggest Mouth commands! Yeah, even non-fans will be asking themselves what the hell this Star Fleet (para-)military organization is doing handing over the Flagship to cadets! And all the old Enterprise crew members were cadets attending the Academy at the exact same time together, too. Spock maroons Kirk on a random ice planet simply because he's too annoying to be allowed to remain (play) aboard the Enterprise. Starships have Brigs for a reason, but the writers don't know this. Abrams probably got the idea of an ice planet from The Empire Strikes Back, and it's even inhabited by a nasty monster (presumably the counterpart to the Wampa Ice Creature from the same SW film--but 100% CGI, which goes through the motions of getting devoured by an even larger CGI creature, as seen in SW Episode I). Coincidentally Kirk meets the older Spock there (seemingly portrayed as the likes of Obi-Wan Kenobi of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, crossed with Yoda's wisdom) and even Scotty is found there (used for comic relief--Chewbacca?), all coincidentally marooned together in the same general area. Really, really, really amazing coincidence. There is no concept of Scale in this movie, much less the Size of Space. It would have been more plausible to set everything on One planet and have the villain simply travel around destroying town after town... This planet is called Delta Vega which, in Real TOS, was located at the very edge of the galaxy and was more of a desert planet. Here the planet, according to Spock's statements, is presumably orbiting Vulcan or in the Vulcan system (since the villain marooned Spock there to watch the planet Vulcan die, or so a subplot claims). That's as Far as "continuity" with TOS actually gets. Being a "reboot" this Delta Vega is probably merely an homage to the planet from TOS' 2nd pilot episode, and can literally be Anywhere in the Abrams' Trek universe. Scott's reason for being on this planet is shamefully inadequate (E-reference!), almost as if it's a penal sentence, but he's got a cute, pint-sized alien sidekick to keep him company (presumably inspired by Jar Jar Binks--Abrams' Star Wars heritage strikes again!). There are in fact various silly-looking token aliens scattered about as background scenary in this movie, each one is a completely original creation never before seen in Trek of course (with the exception of an Orion whore girl), notably present in an earlier bar brawl scene (Abrams' Star Wars cantina, in all its glory). Anyway, Spock tells Scotty about transwarp beaming (giving him a Formula) and they pop up back on the Enterprise despite it moving at warp speed, probably being hundreds of light years away... Does This Seem Even Remotely Plausible In Any Way, Shape, Or Form?!? Can even a Non-Trek Fan who'se never heard of teleportation swallow this crap? Had Q appeared from out of nowhere to lend the team a hand, it would have been infinitely more plausible! By this point in the storyline, any serious fans still watching are probably demanding that the movie turn out to be a bad dream rather than a legitimate Trek adventure film. That request won't be granted. Throughout all this, Dr. McCoy wields a hypo for joke effect in a manner the Real McCoy never would have. The villain is a tattooed Romulan (shades of Darth Maul?) named Nero from the future who goes around destroying worlds with a mining ship (which naturally looks absolutely nothing like any mining ship we've seen anywhere in Trek, Romulan or otherwise--but is big, bad, and for all practical purposes a Death Star in this movie) because he's Evil, and certifiably so because he's carrying throat-worms to torture people. Somehow he demolishes planets by dropping "red matter" blobs, extracted with a hypodermic needle (?!), into planetary fissures he drills which turn into black holes. Does that make any sense? I Did say that there's virtually no Science present in this film. ("Brown" matter would have been more appropriate, in retrospect--the film's symbolically full of it. No sign of "grey matter" anywhere.) Oh yeah, and in the future a supernova could have destroyed the galaxy. Really believable stuff.
I won't even Bother to tackle the countless Treknical nightmares in this movie (like the U.S.S. Enterprise being built ON Earth...in Iowa?) since it's as devoid of any Treknological background as it is devoid of Science. Once upon a time, Star Trek episodes and films made one Think and they Said Something. The new film, to quote another fan, actually encourages the viewer Not to Think. Even the abysmal "Nemesis" film which preceded it, contained themes of sacrifice and being responsible for one's own actions while exploring aspects of the characters. Star Trek 2009 doesn't have characters so much as kids on joyrides, and running away from one situation only to find themselves facing some new CGI threat in another. That is the entire mentality both on the screen and behind the scenes. If I could show you the shooting script, you would laugh. One scene describes young Kirk flying, and I quote, "#ing fast" across the landscape. Kids writing a kid's script, handed over to them from a once-proud, classic 40-year-old science fiction legacy. Poor, poor Roddenberry. The idiotic movie is for all intents and purposes a live-action cartoon. There are huge explosions and ships flying around, guys shootings, a sword fight... It was almost a parody of Galaxy Quest, but I think Quest had Characters. Now that I come to think of it, maybe it was Based more on this movie rather than on TOS. Indeed, one could almost make the case that ST XI was penned by people who hate (or at least despise) Star Trek, and view the original series (which they obviously Never Viewed) as a 60's "camp" has-been.
Critics gave the film rave reviews of course because of the FX and (illogical) action sequences (this is, after all, from the kid who made the new Mission Impossible III film so popular--and quite Insulting to fans of the original, Intelligent 1960's Mission Impossible series, such as myself!). I know I sound like a broken record caught in that same groove but again: Critics of science fiction movies Today merely judge the films Based On the Effects Work not on the acting and certainly not on the Writing! People going in to see this movie were literally Programmed into believing it was to be a great film because of all of the previous hype pre-generated by the industry. Fans were revved up into awaiting a new and flashy take on Trek. Here's a secret: in today's American movie-making industry, where millions of dollars (bordering on billions of dollars) are at stake, praise can now be Purchased. It's no different than dirty politics. Mindless momentum does the rest.
I read at least one Bozo who compiled a list of "the greatest sci-fi movies of all-time" and placed this load towards the top! They came out proclaiming Abrams to be a genius--because other morons had said it, so it must be true. Abrams has no business meddling with Star Trek. No Business! If today's Trek fans (the same lot who backed E!) weren't zomboid franchise-fools, I would Demand that we band together and draft a Petition to ban this twit from going anywhere near future Star Trek movies. Bring him and his accomplices to justice before Gene Roddenberry's son and the fan community. Too late. I know, Paramount's Borg got 'em.
The other big, burning shame is the immense waste: $140 Million for This! Had anyone been Serious about a prequel, with this budget they could have re-created Every starship Enterprise set of TOS in exquisite detail, in addition to every starship Enterprise movie era set--with money to spare! The fan-film maker's dream. Honestly the only good thing I can say about it is that it brought in some newbie fans and guarantees a sequel and another sequel and...I suppose it will keep Trek alive in some lobotomized form for the masses; creating a demand for more trash at this level. But that's like destroying the world in order to create a new one. Exactly what's happened here. Any pure Trek fan would have preferred to have Trek fade away into the sunset and survive in book form than This atrocity! And at least Roddenberry and his wife were lucky to have died before having to witness this nightmare bastardization rape the name Star Trek. Another Plus: No Okuda in sight! Some fans will undoubtedly say this is why the new film was Treknically brain-dead: as it needed technobabble or Some dose of Science. But does Michael Okuda need to be present to, let us say, substitute "quantum-collapsed phased degenerative matter" for "Red Matter"? Any asshole can do that, too bad nobody gives a # anywhere in this dog to even Bother. We're left with that along with "space lightning" and related bad terminology, and even worse lack of science, to shudder from. One final Plus for this film--from my personal perspective: It's the only "Star Trek" movie I never saw in theaters. You see, I knew what was coming so I got myself a pirated copy off of the internet instead and I was Glad that I didn't fork over one cent at the box office. The following year I did a good DVD rip after its legal release just to go over it again in proper detail, and to make sure that I wasn't hallucinating and that the bootleg I saw wasn't a fan-made hack or incomplete copy. Yup, the film really Did happen and just as badly as I remembered it. Not even Alan Dean Foster--the famous Trek TAS novelist--could save this in any way, shape, or form when he novelizied the movie. Foster was famous for fleshing out episodes and movies, adding in detailed background information and delving into characters' psyches. Not this time. If anything, ADF's book shows how little even he cared for the final product; a complete workmanlike job and uninteresting read. In an attempt to redeem and smooth-over fans, and to ensure that they Don't come to their senses and go on a rampage, a fully-authorized comic book series called "Countdown" was released which tried to "explain" the various BS elements in the movie in the form of a prequel. They thought of everything. This is probably why so many assholes still hold "Star Trek (2009)" in such high regard--they were snowed over Twice. If only they'd have put as much work and research into the Film as they put into this comic book, then maybe it wouldn't have been neccessary to write a comic book After the movie bombed to somehow Save it. I love this cockeyed logic. And now I can use this movie as ammo against all those Canonhead Okuda-kissers out there: To become a starship captain you only need to have a big mouth and punch people out, in Star Fleet you can whore your way through the ranks (ala Uhura), Starships are built On planets... Hey, it's Now Canon, guys! We Saw It on the big screen! C-A-N-O-N! Fully Authorized And Approved By Paramount Pictures, Inc. "We Know better Now! It's Official!" How do you like it shoved up Your Ass! TOS fans of old, how does this sound to You? Incidentally, this little movie review would be considered "inappropriate" for posting on a Star Trek message board today (even with the ass comment omitted), since it consists of "trolling" and fingers certain prominent names. That's just now allowed. It would at the very least get me a "warning" from a moderator and at the most a permanent ban. That's why you're reading it Here.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by CaptainLJB
 


The future is bad because someone doesn't like black and white television?

What an absurd and quite frankly narcisstic thing to think that because someone doesn't care for a genre,that there is something wrong with them and the future.

I don't care for black and white shows, and all but one movie. Boo hoo.

Just because something is old, doesn't make it better which seems to be the rut you two are in, since you have spent a page polishing each other's bat'leths.

First off, to assume a 2010 movie is going to stick to 1960's ideals is your first mistake.

The structure has to change, the filming has to change, the acting has to change.

JJ did an excellent job of regenerating ST and bringing it into the 21st century with still a nod to TOS.

You really think a captain fighting an alien in a shiny green suit is going to appeal to anybody today?

So isntead of more prosthetics, the Romulans were completely reinvented, not given Beatles hair, still suffering from psychosis, and were made into a much better bad guy.

That is what needs to happen to ST.

No one is going to recreate TOS. Nor does anyone want them too. But after many chapters, it got the overhaul that it needed.

Just like TNG had TOS watchers crumpled in anxiety over its birth onto the scene, you guys are having the same reaction, over and over and over with each new escapade.

You guys need to read: Who Moved My Cheese




What I am saying is that people who restrict themselves to COLOR movies as opposed to BLACK & WHITE movies have no business offering an opinion on films. Some--and I even dare say Most--of the greatest films ever made were shot in black and white. I mean, what's next, someone's going to say "I only watch 3D movies! All over kinds of movies Suck!"?

I never said something old is better. However, the pattern I am seeing is that modern movies are catering more and more to children (or adults with child-like mentalities); it's a part of the whole dumbing-down of America, and Hollywood in particular. More and more movies made these days are animated/CGI things or else are based on childrens books. I bet you didn't even know that the mega-over-hypeed "Spielberg" film called "War Horse" is based on a kiddie book! You wouldn't have known that because Spielberg stole the stageplay and mde it his own. Same guy also didn't write Jaws, Close Encounters, Jurassic Park, or well, much of Anything but he'll slap his name on it.

Regading Trek movies, I applaud aintelligent writing but I'm seeing less and less of it. Everything is geared toward big screen FX and space battles. I like a good space battle as much as any fan, but I just don't think it should take the place of a good plot with dimensional characters. Everything these days is about Copying the older stuff, many times just taking the Name because when it's an Established Name you've got a ready-made audience. I just don't see any films doing the Original material much justice anymore. The Trek movies in general have been going down in quality, and that's quite apparent with the last two.

And now what do we have... The Return of The Wrath of Khan! Why? Well, because ST II is generally considered to be the best of the Trek movies--so JJ's gonna COPY IT and hope to sucker in That crowd. But I'm not falling for it. It's cheap rehash. And if this script's for real it's Really asking too much to like it. But then again didn't I mention that Abrams and friends are NOT Trek fans? Hmmm?
Their realm is the Transformers movies (!?!?!). OKAY...

Reinventing the Romulans: They were only given ridges, which is rather pointless if they're recent offshoots of the Vulcans. But that's asking too much from the writers I guess... Nero stands as The most cardboard, unconvincing villain of all Trek films. I mean, heck, at least Shinzon was given an on-screen character study for the audience and we know where he was coming from. But this Nero guy... You'd have to read the "Countdown" comic books for His background--and they were conveniently released After this abortion was launched in theaters to kinda make up for it; apologize to the fans and "justify" his credibility...

TOS didn't get an overhaul, it got raped. Plain and simple. Read my little griping review. It's all there. From the way the Trek universe was TRASHED with a time travel gimmick right out of the ghetto to most of the cast reenacting the characters on the edge of parody. When I was watching this film I had to keep telling myself "That young guy's supposed to be Chekov, That guy with the dark hair is supposed to be Scotty... " Oh, Gene, I can't continue...

Dunno about this Cheese thingie... Sounds like a book written by Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton, or that Sookie person... One of those Hollywood airhead "celebrities"...
I'm a very demanding fan what can I say



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Firstly, if I am not one of the two polishing weapons then nevermind this post



Originally posted by nixie_nox
The future is bad because someone doesn't like black and white television?

The past is bad because someone doesn't like color television?

I call this movie what it is, a money grabber with "Trek" for a title. And, I only really dislike it because it means that there will be no more "prime universe" media. (Other than video games, and that is pretty iffy.)

So yeah, I would rather enjoy the prime universe. Not for its lack of hues, but for its lack of bright lighting!


Originally posted by nixie_nox
Just because something is old, doesn't make it better which seems to be the rut you two are in, since you have spent a page polishing each other's bat'leths.

Well, since "better" would be a subjective term. I would have to disagree.

I have watched the old Treks, and find them better than the new movie. This is not a rut, it is my personal preference. I have seen classic television, and find it more entertaining than modern television. Again, just a personal preference.

So yes, just because it is old it is better....to me. (Of course, I assumed folks would know that last part was implied. So apologies!)


Originally posted by nixie_nox
First off, to assume a 2010 movie is going to stick to 1960's ideals is your first mistake.

I never assumed this. The only thing I assumed from this movie is that they would have picked a better Spock Mom. Wynona, sheesh. Oh, and that it is just out for money (As it should be...)


Originally posted by nixie_nox
The structure has to change, the filming has to change, the acting has to change.

I don't see why, the Next Gen movies were still drawing the crowds. Maybe these things had to change, because Abrams didn't like Star Trek?


Originally posted by nixie_nox
JJ did an excellent job of regenerating ST and bringing it into the 21st century with still a nod to TOS.

I disagree, he did an excellent job of recreating Trek. Regeneration would require the original to still be around, other than re-runs.


Originally posted by nixie_nox
You really think a captain fighting an alien in a shiny green suit is going to appeal to anybody today?

What about appealing to ridicule? Check out some clips of Star Trek: Nemesis. Their blood may have been green, and their uniforms shiny. But the action content was near equal to the new Trek movie.


Originally posted by nixie_nox
So isntead of more prosthetics, the Romulans were completely reinvented, not given Beatles hair, still suffering from psychosis, and were made into a much better bad guy.

Yeah, considering they and the Vulcans share the same lineage they should look nothing alike. After all, evil Spock had a goatee!

They had to be re-created so that Abrams could call them his own. They had to be re-created (Take note these Romulans were from the Prime universe, so they should have been "old fashioned") because the old fashioned ones weren't actiony enough. (Another note, what was wrong with the baddies from Nemesis? They were pretty freaky deaky.)


Originally posted by nixie_nox
That is what needs to happen to ST.

You say "needs" alot. This is what you wanted to happen. Star Trek needed nothing, it had a huge fan base (still does). If they want to add more folks, thats fine. But don't try to claim it "needed help" or something.


Originally posted by nixie_nox
No one is going to recreate TOS. Nor does anyone want them too. But after many chapters, it got the overhaul that it needed.

Why does everyone assume these old shows need to be "overhauled". What happened to original content?


Originally posted by nixie_nox
Just like TNG had TOS watchers crumpled in anxiety over its birth onto the scene, you guys are having the same reaction, over and over and over with each new escapade.

Again with the "guys". I just said I was upset at the money grabbing of the franchise. And that I won't support films I don't want to watch. And that TOS that sucks so bad, well without that TOS there would be no new Trek. So it must not be all that bad...


Originally posted by nixie_nox
You guys need to read: Who Moved My Cheese

That's so 90's Now who is referencing old material?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Oh jeez, i read some of your purported script leaks and this is certainly NOT what the folks would ever put in a Trek movie. Knowing a lot of the people that work on the effects for these movies, and seeing what's coming down the pike for CG effects, the script you put in doesn't match one bit (other than more Klingons), Khan would NEVER refer to Uhura as "a 23rd century black bitch" or even ask "what she tastes like" even in the 1960's that would be unheard of..

(rolls eyes)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


Listen, this is the Real Deal. I just got it Confirmed by one of my contacts. I Don't like it anymore than You do, so just live with it. A friend of mine tried posting it elsewhere and even got in Trouble for it. Paramount Pictures is concerned about scripts getting out, especially Trek's. All I ask is that you keep quiet about it so I don't get in trouble!

Also note that this is a Preliminary script treatment. They'll probably add stuff to it, notably an original character or two (with Luck!). But let's be honest: film this in 3-D, shove it up on the big screen with lots of CGI and shaking camera work and lens flare--it'll be like Star Wars to today's pea-brained fanboy zombies! Critics today are Paid Off to hype this crud, and even without the bribery, most of them only Know an SF film BY it's special effects! "If you loved The Wrath of Khan--you haven't seen Anything Yet!"

All that degrading Uhura subplot trash is Geared towards creating a Sensation to sucker in More people to pay to see it. Plus that surprise ending Guarantees a sequel--it's the next best thing next to killing off Spock so he can be resurrected in ST III! Considering how this is an "unofficial" poor man's remake of ST II, I think we owe the writers credit for Not recycling that ending and being Original here!



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainLJB
reply to post by vkey08
 


Listen, this is the Real Deal. I just got it Confirmed by one of my contacts.

Any "official" channels that can be referenced for this?

I really find it hard to believe they are going to make Khan a decendant of Osama Bin Laden, I mean that is campy to the extreme. Not to mention the other "sensational stuff".

They don't need contreversy to sell these crappy movies, the lack of story + awesome special effects can do that by itself.

Anyone else miss the good ol' days of cinema? Before "Ball Scratchers" (1 through 20) and "Scrote Savage: Return to Ball Scratching"



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


If I told you my "channel" I'd have to kill you. Then again, I don't entirely trust my sources as much as I used to. One of them is acting "suspicious" sort of. Maybe "compromised."

J.J. Abrams is capable of throwing Anything onto the screen. Don't underestimate his stupidity. His movies are Not aimed at Adults. This is the key to the success of modern movies. They're written for kids with various "adult" elements randomly chucked in. I've been seeing this same pattern over and over again. Take the new movies on IMDB for example, go into the Ratings section. Those giving these garbage movies Top ratings are teens. Those giving the movies near-top ratings are the Under-30 viewers. Those rating the films Lowest are the Oldest viewers. On top of all this, Most of the people voting are Under 20 and the Least people voting are the Oldest (who probably have better things to do with their lives!). The bottom line is that it's a win-win scenario for people who judge movies by mass ratings, at least based on IMDB. What makes these movies So Great in the eyes of younger viewers? It's not the writing, not the acting, It's The Special Effects. Abrams' second Star Trek movie will be released in 3-D, so that alone speaks for itself. So I'm going back to my old discs, the new movie's going to be a Dog.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio

Originally posted by CaptainLJB
reply to post by vkey08
 


Listen, this is the Real Deal. I just got it Confirmed by one of my contacts.

Any "official" channels that can be referenced for this?

I really find it hard to believe they are going to make Khan a decendant of Osama Bin Laden, I mean that is campy to the extreme. Not to mention the other "sensational stuff".

They don't need contreversy to sell these crappy movies, the lack of story + awesome special effects can do that by itself.

Anyone else miss the good ol' days of cinema? Before "Ball Scratchers" (1 through 20) and "Scrote Savage: Return to Ball Scratching"


Yaknow I'm gonna call BS on this, and I will give my reasoning why and maybe it will make sense and maybe it won't.

A few weeks ago I decided (in my insanity) to redo the CGI USS Relativity. It nabbed the attention of the two artists that handle 99.9% of the Trek artwork before it hits the modelers and the animators (of which I was truly not worthy) and I ran that Uhura bit by both of them, and they, having SEEN THE FINAL SCRIPT as they have to have it to do the storyboards and the ship designs, said that line alone would cause Paramount to scrap the whole project out of fear of offending a huge audience sector. In fact, both were so shocked anyone would purport that something so heinous would be in a Trek film, remake or not, they they assured me (as I assumed they would anyhow) that it is not in any revision of the script they had seen from day one.

So your source, is full of cow pucks as far as I'm concerned... I'll take the words of the artists working on it over the words of some unknown source that you would have to kill us over...




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join