JJ Trek 2 [spoilers?]

User45701 · 18-11-2009 3:10pm #1

*ugh*

Source: Scifiwire

http://scifiwire.com/2009/11/8-big-spoilers-for-star-t.php

Bad

Messing around with time?
Khan?
More Spock & Uhura
Abrams will direct again (we can probally expect more shaky cam in combat lol what an idiot)

And to sum up:

Start the A-list casting rumors now. Star Trek featured major stars like Winona Ryder and Tyler Perry in supporting roles. Abrams is open to bringing a movie star in to attract even more viewers. "I think that it's not a bad idea to begin thinking practically in that way," Abrams said. "What can be done to help open it up? In terms of casting, sure. Casting an international star would be a really good idea."

Ye phocus on getting more people to see it than it actually being good....

****ing jj trek i really hope this dive bombs i couldnt handle a decade of jj movies.

all movies are to mak money ye makes sense but jj is too phocused on getting people to see it than it actually being good.

otherwise he wouldnt be makign star trek films he would be making is own line of scifi films and can work on a fanbase from the ground up.

the star trek name was just to make sure the movie made more money. I hear there will be a 3rd jj trek as well so lets hope it ends with that

Kiith · 18-11-2009 4:01pm

Star Trek was brilliant. I trust JJ to make the next one brilliant too.

Blazer · 18-11-2009 4:53pm

Kiith wrote: »

Star Trek was brilliant. I trust JJ to make the next one brilliant too.

agreed....JJ gave Star Trek a kick up the arse and made it a bit more mainstream.
I'm tired of seeing crappy Star Trek films like Nemesis, Insurrection etc etc.
The thing is..if JJ continues to make the brand more mainstream there's a good possibility of a tv show...and one that's not likely to be cancelled.
Can only be a good thing.

trishw78 · 18-11-2009 5:46pm

This is where people will have differing opinions, you'll have your die hard fans of everything previous trek tv/movies are/were, and the new comers. I think if the movies are made too mainstream it could ruin the ST franchise like Stargate. SG1 should have ended years before Black & Bowder were introduced.

I did like the rejuvination of the latest installment. But I think the next one will be the test.

FutureGuy · 18-11-2009 6:15pm

User45701 wrote: »

*ugh*

Source: Scifiwire

http://scifiwire.com/2009/11/8-big-spoilers-for-star-t.php

Bad

Messing around with time?
Khan?
More Spock & Uhura
Abrams will direct again (we can probally expect more shaky cam in combat lol what an idot)

And to sum up:

Start the A-list casting rumors now. Star Trek featured major stars like Winona Ryder and Tyler Perry in supporting roles. Abrams is open to bringing a movie star in to attract even more viewers. "I think that it's not a bad idea to begin thinking practically in that way," Abrams said. "What can be done to help open it up? In terms of casting, sure. Casting an international star would be a really good idea."

Ye phocus on getting more people to see it than it actually being good....

****ing jj trek i really hope this dive bombs i couldnt handle a decade of jj movies.

all movies are to mak money ye makes sense but jj is too phocused on getting people to see it than it actually being good.

otherwise he wouldnt be makign star trek films he would be making is own line of scifi films and can work on a fanbase from the ground up.

the star trek name was just to make sure the movie made more money. I hear there will be a 3rd jj trek as well so lets hope it ends with that

Sigh...he we go again...Wow, there is no pleasing you is there? The film is 3 years away and you are already starting the hate train.

I hope JJ keeps control of Trek for the next 20 years. No wait, make that 50 years. Star Trek was a great film, one that pleased the masses as well as the die-hard (i.e me) fans.

EDIT: And since you love to thank any negative comment about the last movie, I'll thank every positive post about it!!!

somuj · 18-11-2009 9:38pm

I liked JJ's film. Would have liked it even more if they named it something else tho.:(

User45701 · 18-11-2009 9:51pm

FutureGuy wrote: »

Sigh...he we go again...Wow, there is no pleasing you is there? The film is 3 years away and you are already starting the hate train.

I hope JJ keeps control of Trek for the next 20 years. No wait, make that 50 years. Star Trek was a great film, one that pleased the masses as well as the die-hard (i.e me) fans.

EDIT: And since you love to thank any negative comment about the last movie, I'll thank every positive post about it!!!

Fair enough - but i have restate again that i really didn't like the movie - watching it a 2nd time not in the cinema and knew what i was expecting it wasn't as bad as i had remembered - maybe i just secretary had hopes the first one might be good.

It was a ok/decent enough movie - and im sure ill watch it a 3rd time on bluray - but it should not have been called star trek. it still would have been a better film but then it wouldn't have made as much money.

I cant stand the stupid shaky cam in a space combat sequence it was woefully bad and such a waste of a budget and that is one of the things that pissed me off most about the first one.

At first i didn't like the way they redesigned stuff but i was convinced otherwise by an older poster on boards who talked about BSG and how that changed everything but that i liked that.

Fair point because allot of people wouldn't not have liked to see exact remakes of the original designs in the first one.

Still though if not for money can anyone tell me why they didn't just make a new scifi franchise - new name?

I know for me it will be the least watched of the trek films but another thing that gets me is the film makes me feel nothing - Are there any good emotional scenes the the film? dialogue could have been so much more as well, none of it gave me that feeling that the right music, scenery or dialogue that films and TV shows can give

I just help but get pissed off by comments like

"I think that it's not a bad idea to begin thinking practically in that way," Abrams said. "What can be done to help open it up? In terms of casting, sure. Casting an international star would be a really good idea."

Can they not just put all their efforts on the storyline and dialog instead of thinking of casting an international actor could help open things up?

Oh and ye i do agree with most if not all of the negative comments on jj trek and with so many positive comments i thank people who post negative opinions because it hardly seems worth the effort to put forward an opposing view on what was wrong with the movie because of the responses which are very similar from site to site.

I also suspect some people are saying its better than it is because they know it will get under the skin of trekkies

Also calling star trek fans who didnt like it the die hard fans is a bit much.To me die hard star trek fans are the ones who dont like DS9 because roddenberry said something like he never wanted to have inter crew conflict and that in the future we had moved beyond that

If it didn't have the trek name i would have enjoyed it more but there is not enough scifi out there and as with all things hunger is the best sauce and if caprica does not get a full run and other sci shows get cancelled and i have no new scifi im sure i will end up looking forward to jj trek 2 if only to get my fix.

Penn · 18-11-2009 9:57pm

I had never seen a Star Trek film before. I had never watched any of the Star Trek movies before. I knew the basics and stuff, but was never a fan.

Friend lent me his Bluray copy of it on Saturday. I've already watched it twice, and I'm planning on buying it myself this weekend. I thought it was a great film. Really great. They've managed to reboot the series but in a way which kinda keeps the continuity of the previous films and series. There was great action, comedy, characters, acting, story...

This was the first Star Trek film I've seen. If JJ Abrams is directing the next one, then it won't have been the last. Cos I'm officially a fan

User45701 · 18-11-2009 10:13pm

funny enough i just got back from extravision now with a bluray - i walked round to get it after my last post. I wanted to get a 2nd hand copy so i wouldn't contribute to the sales but what can you do?

Just started a fire - lights off going to give it a 3rd watch and since i know what to expect im actually interested in seing the bluray quality

somuj · 18-11-2009 10:17pm

User45701 wrote: »

funny enough i just got back from extravision now with a bluray - i walked round to get it after my last post. I wanted to get a 2nd hand copy so i wouldn't contribute to the sales but what can you do?

Just started a fire - lights off going to give it a 3rd watch and since i know what to expect im actually interested in seing the bluray quality

When you watch it again see if you can figure out how

Nero knew that Spock would appear 25 years after he did. Ave seen it twice and must be missing something

User45701 · 18-11-2009 10:24pm

somuj wrote: »

When you watch it again see if you can figure out how
Nero knew that Spock would appear 25 years after he did. Ave seen it twice and must be missing something

http://www.zimbio.com/watch/YBlx9UJol4y/Ronald+Moore+Star+Trek+Tech+Tech/SCI+FI+Wire

tech the tech to the tech tech .... tech

?

just about to hit play now but that would be my guess

trishw78 · 19-11-2009 1:33pm

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I had never seen a Star Trek film before. I had never watched any of the Star Trek movies before. I knew the basics and stuff, but was never a fan.

Friend lent me his Bluray copy of it on Saturday. I've already watched it twice, and I'm planning on buying it myself this weekend. I thought it was a great film. Really great. They've managed to reboot the series but in a way which kinda keeps the continuity of the previous films and series. There was great action, comedy, characters, acting, story...

This was the first Star Trek film I've seen. If JJ Abrams is directing the next one, then it won't have been the last. Cos I'm officially a fan

How can you say it's rebooted the series other films. I don't see them showing reruns on Terrestial TV or the more commonly watched Sattilite channels.

There wasn't any message in it. you always came away from watching OST tv shows & movies with the feeling you had learned something about humanity, there was a subliminal message, that has been lost in the other series and films.

In calling yourself a fan will you be going to watch the other films tv shows.

Josey Wales · 19-11-2009 2:19pm

Well I've always been a fan of Star Trek and when I first heard JJ Abrams was rebooting the franchise I was unsure. I went to it with an open mind and loved it. I'll certainly be getting the Bluray this Christmas.

If the films by JJ lead to new TV series that would be awesome. Although I would really like a show in the style of DS9 rather than the flashy style of the new film. One of the posters above seems to have a big issue with having A-List stars in a sequel. I'd have no problem with this at all. If they hire good actors, who cares how famous they are?

User45701 · 19-11-2009 3:08pm

my problem was they care more about getting people in than making a good emotional sotry with dialog. noone answered my question - what scenes in jj trek gave you an emotional resonce? what scenes made you feel anything?

Penn · 19-11-2009 3:21pm

trishw78 wrote: »

How can you say it's rebooted the series other films. I don't see them showing reruns on Terrestial TV or the more commonly watched Sattilite channels.

There wasn't any message in it. you always came away from watching OST tv shows & movies with the feeling you had learned something about humanity, there was a subliminal message, that has been lost in the other series and films.

In calling yourself a fan will you be going to watch the other films tv shows.

I might try watching Wrath of Khan, I've heard thats meant to be a great film. I also saw part of Nemesis before but didn't get to watch all of it. But when I said I'm a fan, I meant I'm a fan of this new film series. I don't think I'd have time to start watching all the other series from start

I'm not sure what you mean be rebooting the series. I meant that, the series and films had pretty much stalled as far as I can tell. The new film will help bring new fans to the franchise who won't need to have an extensive knowledge of the previous films and shows. How can that be a bad thing?

trishw78 · 19-11-2009 3:37pm

User45701 wrote: »

my problem was they care more about getting people in than making a good emotional sotry with dialog. noone answered my question - what scenes in jj trek gave you an emotional resonce? what scenes made you feel anything?

I think the lack of answers to those questions is your answer.

But that's 'HOLLYWOOD' it's all about making a quick big buck then on to the next think, esp when it comes to heavy CGI movies they have to make the money back somehow.

Penn · 19-11-2009 3:53pm

User45701 wrote: »

my problem was they care more about getting people in than making a good emotional sotry with dialog. noone answered my question - what scenes in jj trek gave you an emotional resonce? what scenes made you feel anything?

Spocks repression of emotions when his mother died, and his subsequent outburst. I felt that was brilliantly done.

Spocks father saying he married Spocks mother because he loved her was a great moment I felt.

User45701 · 23-11-2009 2:40pm

and did they give you that feeling inside where your heart rate changes and your brain does that thing where it releases whatever and you get that rush of sensentation?

the spock scene was not a bad scene but i didnt get any sort of physical from it - no tightning of the chest or anything like that

Blazer · 23-11-2009 2:44pm

User45701 wrote: »

and did they give you that feeling inside where your heart rate changes and your brain does that thing where it releases whatever and you get that rush of sensentation?

wait till you try sex.....................................with another person

scanlas · 26-11-2009 4:40pm

I felt is was a decent movie on it's own that was worth showing but it was unimaginative and wreckless in messing with the star trek universe. One of the best attrubutes of star trek is it's level of consistency. I know there have been inconsistencies in the past but this was ridiculous. They blew up vulcan. The romulan looked nothing like a romulan. Why can't they make a movie based on the events after DS9 and Voyager. Perhaps have themes involving the aftermath of the dominion war.

trishw78 · 26-11-2009 6:11pm

sure the romulan's didn't look like romulans, but you have to remember the Klingons didn't look like Klingons in OST in DS9 Worf refered to why the looked so human like and said it was an embarassing time and didn't want to talk about it.

But there was no really explaination to why they changed they're appearance.

Perhaps the romulans had evolved in the future.

scanlas · 26-11-2009 7:37pm

trishw78 wrote: »

sure the romulan's didn't look like romulans, but you have to remember the Klingons didn't look like Klingons in OST in DS9 Worf refered to why the looked so human like and said it was an embarassing time and didn't want to talk about it.

But there was no really explaination to why they changed they're appearance.

Perhaps the romulans had evolved in the future.

I'm not happy about that either, but I don't see the point in changing how the romulans look, what was wrong with them the way they were, that movie loses crediblity in my eyes as a result.They can't evolve like that in a hundred years or so.

FutureGuy · 30-11-2009 11:37am

scanlas wrote: »

I felt is was a decent movie on it's own that was worth showing but it was unimaginative and wreckless in messing with the star trek universe. One of the best attrubutes of star trek is it's level of consistency. I know there have been inconsistencies in the past but this was ridiculous. They blew up vulcan. The romulan looked nothing like a romulan.

That's because everything in the new set of movies is occuring in an alternate timeline so they can do whatever they want. Vulcan still exists in the alpha trek time line, just as Romulus does not. As for the Romulans, they look exactly like Romulans we know, but with tattoos and bald heads, which are explained in the Star Trek:Countdown prequel book. Spoiler:

Prior to the destruction of Romulus, Nero and his crew looked exactly like the Romulans we know. They were an honest, likable crew and they all had hair and no tattoos (just like regular Romulans). The Narada was just a simple mining vessel and looked nothing like the ship we saw in the movie. However, when Romulus was destroyed, they all shaved their heads and tattooed themselves to never forget what they lost. They encounted a secret Romulan based called the Vault which had been working on reverse-engineering a Borg vessel. They upgraded the Narada with Borg tech, which is why it is so deadly.

scanlas wrote: »

Why can't they make a movie based on the events after DS9 and Voyager. Perhaps have themes involving the aftermath of the dominion war.

Because, quite frankly, it would be a box-office disaster, far worse than Nemesis. The reason why Trek XI made 400m worldwide (and probably double that on DVD/BluRay sales) is that it successfully got the non-Star Trek fans to watch it, something they rarely did with the recent Trek movies.

Goodshape · 30-11-2009 5:14pm

FutureGuy wrote: »

As for the Romulans, they look exactly like Romulans we know, but with tattoos and bald heads, which are explained in the Star Trek:Countdown prequel book.

The Countdown story is quite good actually. Ties up a few loose ends post-Nemesis and shows how events unfolded prior to Spock Prime and Nero heading back in time. Definitely worth a read.

Here's a shot of Nero before he 'did a Britney' on that Romulan head of hair.

Klingon Hamlet · 01-12-2009 1:51am

User45701 wrote: »

my problem was they care more about getting people in than making a good emotional sotry with dialog. noone answered my question - what scenes in jj trek gave you an emotional resonce? what scenes made you feel anything?

I felt very sad when

George Kirk heard his baby's first cry, seconds before he's spacedust

And when

Spock was bullied and unleashed his inner turmoil

And when

Spock's mom didn't make it; his hand still outstretched, the pad where she should have stood, horribly empty

And when

Spock and Uhura shared the lift, and she was the only one he could beigin to let his guard down with, and she wanted to help him any way she could (in the commentary JJ explains how she got into that frame of mind playing that scene--quite touching stuff)

And when

Nero showed the holo-image of his wife and unborn child

And when

Old Spock was practically teary-eyed, his pain exposed to young Kirk, as he confessed to being basically responsible for the destruction of Romulus, and for Nero's subsequent destruction of Vulcan

It was, to me, a great film on two levels: brash and exciting and unapologetic for its hyped-up pace and flashy visuals; as well as emotionally resonant, full of personality, and more human in feeling and action than the robotic Berman-produced saga.

I loved it. It had its faults, but it was a very emotional Star Trek film, and a fun one too. Dark yet almost campy at the same time.

Another poster criticised JJ's savvy with hiring known names. He's smart to want to do that. Attracts a broader audience, which means more ticket sales, more success, longer-lasting franchise.

It's only when he sacrifices the film's integrity for the sake of a famous cameo that it deserves our ire. I recall all known actors in this film to do a great job, to blend in, except Nero, who would've rivalled Khan as an uber-maniac had he been better served with adequate screentime. But origin stories and ultimate nemeses seldom mix, and so Trek XII should provide a better adversary.

On that point, Daniel Craig said he's a major Trekkie. He's a cold b@stard. Get him in!

Klingon Hamlet · 01-12-2009 1:56am

scanlas wrote: »

I'm not happy about that either, but I don't see the point in changing how the romulans look, what was wrong with them the way they were, that movie loses crediblity in my eyes as a result.They can't evolve like that in a hundred years or so.

Klingons evolved head ridges in a decade (screw Enterprise's dreary half-explanation--pathetic)

Spock's ears kept changing across the films

Borg went from a collective of zombie-like drones to more sinister incarnations with a sexually-charged dominatrix as a figurehead, all to fit a story.

FutureGuy · 01-12-2009 10:47am

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Klingons evolved head ridges in a decade (screw Enterprise's dreary half-explanation--pathetic)

Spock's ears kept changing across the films

Borg went from a collective of zombie-like drones to more sinister incarnations with a sexually-charged dominatrix as a figurehead, all to fit a story.

I'd MUCH rather take Enterprises explanation over the explanation you have provided.

trishw78 · 01-12-2009 3:03pm

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

And when
Spock's mom didn't make it; his hand still outstretched, the pad where she should have stood, horribly empty

Now I don't know why I have this thought in my head but I always thought that

Spock's Mother died in child birth

Goodshape · 01-12-2009 3:38pm

In the original timeline? No, she didn't. She's in a couple of the films - 3 and 4 I think.

Klingon Hamlet · 01-12-2009 11:51pm

Goodshape wrote: »

In the original timeline? No, she didn't. She's in a couple of the films - 3 and 4 I think.

And 5 (gods help us) with the flashback, and Sarek says sadly, So human...

She was also in TNG.

Klingon Hamlet · 01-12-2009 11:56pm

FutureGuy wrote: »

I'd MUCH rather take Enterprises explanation over the explanation you have provided.

I didn't mean it the way it sounded:DI meant the head ridges showed up in The Motion Picture which was set ten years after TOS.

I was giving previous examples of filmmakers altering the very nature and aesthetic of characters and races to suit the film, or to take full advantage of budget.

All to emphasise that JJ wasn't the first to change these things. He seems to take a lot of flak for shaking things up. I'd be genuinely curious about the reaction to Meyer's interpretation of the Fleet as almost a naval, militaristic force in TWOK (right down to their uniforms and procedures). I know he took alot of heat for Spock's death pre-release, only for it now to be seen as one of the greatest moments in movie history.

(Going off the point here)

My point: these films ar emade to entertain. As many have pointed out, Trek suffered from its own adherence to strict rules, despite many times it unknowingly contradcting itself. JJ amde it fun, made the Romulans different yet true.

Possibility: they were miners, possibly an alpha race, possibly a caste of Romulans treated almost as badly as Remans. Gritty labourers determined to wreak violent vengeance. Surely, it's possible there are different races of Romulans, some with more pronounced brows due to their hormonal/genetic differences.

Or...IT'S A MOVIE:D

JJ Trek 2 [spoilers?]

Comments