| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just say no.
If no one watches then JJ Abrams career will be over.
Hopefully.
Just say no.
If no one watches then JJ Abrams career will be over.
Hopefully.
it ain't happening, but I will not bludgeon you over the head about it. Turntthe moviexdown if you will, I will buy your ticket and many more besides.
I will buy your ticket and many more besides.
You must be a JJ Abrams fan if you are excited about a bad Wrath of Khan remake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will buy your ticket and many more besides.
Yes! Joss Whe - er... JJ Abrams is my master now.
|
I will buy your ticket and many more besides.Yes! Joss Whe - er... JJ Abrams is my master now.
Sock Puppet one turns to Captain Caboodle and declares: My Name is Joss Wheadon. Say you like my movies and I will make Avengers 2. Sock Puppet two Says: My name is JJ Abrams...and if you like my movies I will make Startrek 3.
George Lucas removes the two socks from the Horns on his head after you have surrendered your money to the box.Now I can direct Star Wars 7-9...and make repeated changes to them.
Well this article here points out that the Japanese version has extra footage which looks surprisingly similar to Spock's death scene in the original Wrath...go figure.
Well many people have been convinced for some time now that the main villain is indeed Khan for this movie. Even before the Japanese trailer seemed to confirm our worst fears.
And yes I am going with the presumption it will be a bad but very action packed movie typical of his first Star Trek movie.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have been following Star Trek for about 40 years now, and I loved every incarnation of it, some more, some less. But sometimes, when I see an old episode on TV, I think to myself, "how could I ever have liked that?"
Maybe 20 years from now, I will say the same about the JJ Abrams movies, but right now, I absolutely loved the first movie, and I am totally excited about the second one.
And LazarX, I agree 100% with your spouse.
My spouse called Abram's first move. "The moment Star Trek finally grew up."
Weird.
"It has become a crusade of mine to demonstrate that TV need not be violent to be exciting." - Gene Roddenberry
"I wanted to send a message to the television industry that excitement is not made of car chases."- Gene Roddenberry
"We stress humanity, and this is done at considerable cost. We can't have a lot of dramatics that other shows get away with - promiscuity, greed, jealousy. None of those have a place in Star Trek." - Gene Roddenberry
And now we have a movie using nothing but explosions to advertise his work.
And yes I am going with the presumption it will be a bad but very action packed movie typical of his first Star Trek movie.
I'm just gonna leave this here.
Also, you mean typical of pretty much every Star Trek movie, right?
Arguing that the first Abrams Trek is a bad movie is a non-starter. The universal acclaim it's received makes that a pretty hard position to defend. Arguing that it's a bad Trek movie because it has a lot of action is also a non-starter, because that's been the case for nearly every Star Trek movie ever made. Arguing that it's not like an extra-long episode from one of the TV series? You could probably get away with that, but what would it prove? That you're watching a movie, and not a new Star Trek TV series?
And now we have a movie using nothing but explosions to advertise his work.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan theatrical trailer.
Yep, no violence or explosions there.
Hopefully they will not divert all power to the lens flare generator like Abrams did in his first Trek movie....and in Super 8...
Such an annoying effect.
And now we have a movie using nothing but explosions to advertise his work.Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan theatrical trailer.
Yep, no violence or explosions there.
Except the team behind Wrath of Khan had a history of doing not just explosion-filled action movies and made something that wasn't one, but had those elements. I have no such hopes for this movie, especially after the terrible story and pacing of the last one.
"It has become a crusade of mine to demonstrate that TV need not be violent to be exciting." - Gene Roddenberry
"I wanted to send a message to the television industry that excitement is not made of car chases."- Gene Roddenberry
"We stress humanity, and this is done at considerable cost. We can't have a lot of dramatics that other shows get away with - promiscuity, greed, jealousy. None of those have a place in Star Trek." - Gene Roddenberry
And now we have a movie using nothing but explosions to advertise his work.
Yes so unlike the explosions as battles and violence that populate pretty much ALL of the Star Trek movies from II on forward (well maybe not so much the Voyage Home, but still).
This is a crap criticism being that there is a fair amount of violence (tame by today's standard but still) in the orignal series and then in the movies.
Nothing ever stays the same and Star Trek REALLY needed a new coat of paint on it after the last few movies. I liked the 2009 Star Trek film. I'll probably like this one as well. It doesnt make me a JJ Abrams fanboy, it makes me someone who enjoyed an exciting adventure film set in space with new, yet familiar characters.
People want more of the same there's like almost 40 years of Star Trek predating the 2009 movie. Help yourselves. At least Paramount isn't keeping the original versions of Star Trek away from you and pushing a new CG and re-edited version of the movie/TV show at you.
Except the team behind Wrath of Khan had a history of doing not just explosion-filled action movies and made something that wasn't one, but had those elements. I have no such hopes for this movie, especially after the terrible story and pacing of the last one.And now we have a movie using nothing but explosions to advertise his work.Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan theatrical trailer.
Yep, no violence or explosions there.
Yeah Wrath of Khan? basically a Sub chase movie IN SPACE. I wasnt a Star Trek fan before Khan in '82 but afterwards I was. After the snooze fest that was The Motion Picture in 79 they needed to make the next one more interesting and action based. And I'm sure back in 81 and 82 when the first pictures started showing up in Starlog magazine people complained too.
Didnt stop Nicholas Meyer from turning out a GREAT Star Trek Movie.
Yeah Wrath of Khan? basically a Sub chase movie IN SPACE.
I like this aspect of the space battles best of all. Kahn and Kirk are never even in the same room together.
I've no doubt that Kirk and whoever the villain is will get into a slugfest in this one though.
|
Except the team behind Wrath of Khan had a history of doing not just explosion-filled action movies and made something that wasn't one, but had those elements. I have no such hopes for this movie, especially after the terrible story and pacing of the last one.And now we have a movie using nothing but explosions to advertise his work.Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan theatrical trailer.
Yep, no violence or explosions there.
Caineach, my friend (and Aranna as well, I suppose)... I respect your right to your opinion, but I could not disagree more. In fact, other than right here in this thread by a few posters, I don't think I've encountered a single person who didn't really like or LOVE the first movies (die-hard Trek fan and casual movie-goer alike)
|
If the villain is Khan, then it is a younger Khan, and not the Khan from Wrath of Khan. (That may be the most use of the word Khan in a sentence.)
That means Enterprise finds the Botany Bay and the other changes in the time stream likely effected that eventual outcome too. If it is Khan, I will be curious as to how they handle it with what we already know from the original TV series episode.
I am just looking forward to it. The first JJ Abrams Star Trek was a blast. Fun movie!
Well many people have been convinced for some time now that the main villain is indeed Khan for this movie. Even before the Japanese trailer seemed to confirm our worst fears.
And yes I am going with the presumption it will be a bad but very action packed movie typical of his first Star Trek movie.
Honestly, Aranna, the new going speculation among fans (at least on Trekmovie.com) is that the villain is Gary Mitchell and that it'll be a sequel to the IDW JJverse redo of "Where No Man Has Gone Before".
My own feeling is that it's going to be a new villain, and that it's most likely going to draw heavily from "Heart of Darkness"/"Apocalypse Now" in its themes.
I liked the action in movie 1... But:
-The story was horrible.
-The science was too crazy even for Star Trek. (goo that makes black holes?!)
-It violated what we already know about the Star Trek universe.
-They blew up Vulcan...
Far more bad than good.
Sadly it seems people who didn't like it are in the minority, so the new one should do just fine in the box office.
I loved the first one.
I will buy your ticket and many more besides.Yes! Joss Whe - er... JJ Abrams is my master now.
I love what they did! The charcters were spot on, Bones is fab. Love the fact they can now re-write history and lore if they wish and make it what they desire.
However low point for me..I'm British I love Simon Pegg to bits, he's a genius- spaced is fab! but his Scotty..oh dear...
My wife..big Stat Trek fan..not impressed...re-write history, you re-write Wrath of Khan and everything connected with it which means Kirks son David does not exist, meaning no reason to watch Khan any more..
Personaly I hope Abrahm loves Kahn as much as everyone else and does not mess with the timeline of the besytTrek movie ever! (and keep the wife happy too).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Caineach, my friend (and Aranna as well, I suppose)... I respect your right to your opinion, but I could not disagree more. In fact, other than right here in this thread by a few posters, I don't think I've encountered a single person who didn't really like or LOVE the first movies (die-hard Trek fan and casual movie-goer alike)Except the team behind Wrath of Khan had a history of doing not just explosion-filled action movies and made something that wasn't one, but had those elements. I have no such hopes for this movie, especially after the terrible story and pacing of the last one.And now we have a movie using nothing but explosions to advertise his work.Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan theatrical trailer.
Yep, no violence or explosions there.
Funny, I don't know anyone who thought the first one was a good science fiction movie. I know plenty who thought it was a good action movie, but currently my social media is furious with people facepalming at this trailer, feeling it is more or less the death of Star Trek as we knew it. Gone was the intelligence from the series in the last movie, and no one thinks it will return in this one.
-It violated what we already know about the Star Trek universe.
See, that right there is your problem. How does it "violate" anything about the ST universe? It basically is a retcon. It doesn't change or invalidate anything set in the old timeline.
Which is full of crap, by the way. The old Star Trek was destroyed by Berman and Braga (the 4th season of Enterprise notwithstanding). Completely. They screwed up that timeline so hard that it is not salvageable.
A retcon was the only way to save the franchise. Admittedly, the way they did it, storywise, was stupid, but that's what you get when you hire the guys who wrote Transformers. And it still doesn't beat the dumb stories of ST 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10.
If you can't get over New Trek, stay at home, re-watch your favorite episodes, and be happy you got them. Why do you let New Trek concern you at all? Abrams did you a favor by starting anew. Just allow yourself to accept the disconnect between both universes.
|
|
If you can't get over New Trek, stay at home, re-watch your favorite episodes, and be happy you got them. Why do you let New Trek concern you at all? Abrams did you a favor by starting anew. Just allow yourself to accept the disconnect between both universes.
I have to agree FM!
There is so much Star Trek material out there that it is nothing short of ridiculous. It is hard for me to understand anyone complaining about anything being made with the Star Trek name on it, when there were only 12 episodes and one movie worth of Firefly. Don't get me wrong, I like Star Trek. I have been a huge fan since I was very small, likely longer than many here have been alive. But for me Firefly is better, and that series did not receive its do. Star Trek has received its do many times over.
Oh don't worry I certainly am not going to spend even one penny on this movie. I will probably see it when it hits HBO. And like Caineach I also have many friends who think Abrams is destroying the Star Trek franchise. I am obviously not going to change the minds of the Abrams fans here but he did irritate a lot of Trekers with his first movie.
Oh and there are many who would disagree that Abrams did anyone a favor by messing up Star Trek.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a Khan remake actually makes a lot of sense. Without Kirk to deal with him in the normal timeline he needs to be addressed.
I think a Khan remake actually makes a lot of sense. Without Kirk to deal with him in the normal timeline he needs to be addressed.Does that mean every other menace from the original series needs to be addressed too?
Of course, if no one ever comes across the Botany Bay, he can just keep drifting in suspended animation. There's no real need for him to be addressed.
Not every menace needs to be addressed. But, c'mon. Khan. Best Star Trek villain. It would be hard to imagine him as anybody other than Ricardo Montalban, but I'd be willing to give it a try.
I would love to see Abrams throw the curve and for the Cumberbatch to be playing Gary Mitchell, though. I had been hoping to see a Mitchell character in the first movie.
Overall, I liked the Abrams Trek. Characterizations were nicely over the top which I think is a hallmark of Classic Trek. My main disappointment was the amount of white and lucite on the ship without much of a nod to Trek's dark color palette. Bet the ship is all smudgy-dingey within 2 years of its 5 year mission...
Could it be Captain Garth?
That's LORD Garth to you!
What I hated about the first Abrams movie was that it totally voided my favorite tos episode 'Balance of Terror'.
What I loved was the long, loving fly-by of the Enterprise.
And, hey, it was also the least offensive time-travel tale I've ever seen.
So...Khan, Mitchell, or Garth?
I'm kinda pulling for Mitchell, but Khan would be good, too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
-The science was too crazy even for Star Trek. (goo that makes black holes?!)
Really? A liquid form of exotic matter that can be used to create singularities is the craziest thing you've ever seen come out of the Star Trek franchise?
The main villian is supposed to be somebody from the original series. For one thing, it can't be Kahn. At this time, Kirk hasn't found Kahn to rescue him from cold sleep & piss him off yet. The general feeling is it is Gary Michaels from the second pilot episode, the guy that becomes God-like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what would suck? If they redid the "Goin back to eden! Yaaay brother!" space hippies as space hipsters. And Spock jammed with them, and they all said, "yeah,.....I was into Spock before he sold out."
Heh heh,....and they'd all wear federation costumes from the original 60's show, that they said they got at Goodwill but really bought for $75.