LATEST NEWS

1

From the re-makers of "Star Trek" who brought you such quotable lines as: "Buckle Up!" "Fire Everything!" and "Why are you talking to me, man?" comes.... "Star Trek II: The Apology" Maybe they'll spend just a little less on the SFX guys this time and give a few bucks to hire a decent dialog writer.

Blackstar on Dec 29, 2009

2

I foresee you getting ripped apart here Blackstar...

T on Dec 29, 2009

3

Just a raving classic Treky who hasn't taken his tampon out yet.

Babyjohn on Dec 29, 2009

4

First one was good but way over-hyped- I guess I was expecting a little more jaw-droppage from the first... pretty 'meh' about a sequel

Antioch on Dec 29, 2009

5

The more Zoe Saldana the better.

Xerxex on Dec 29, 2009

6

@1 Funny thing is, those lines actually ARE quotable. Failrage.

manxome on Dec 29, 2009

7

lol he does have a point, as great as the movie was there wasnt much depth to the script and i just realized the other day that shes the same chick from avatar, i thought she was one of the strongest actors in avatar so hopefully star trek 2 will give her more screen time.

harrison on Dec 29, 2009

8

Hopefully Zoe will be in every scene

Geoff on Dec 29, 2009

9

Bring it! Can't wait. Zoe is beautiful.

Brandon on Dec 29, 2009

10

#1 - I don't care how "cheesy" those lines of dialogue may have been, Star Trek was an awesome movie. I had such an amazing time watching it, it truly was an entertaining experience. And those kind of lines are exactly what you'd expect from Star Trek. It's still the same nerdy series as before, just wrapped up in a glossy package.

Alex Billington on Dec 29, 2009

11

No Alex, I would not expect anything like those lines I quoted from the original Star Trek. (I'd love for you to site some examples). They had a style all their own and their flaws as well of their memorable moments never had remotely the same tone as the ones like JJ's version. Not even close. It's not just a whole different shelf in the cheese store. It's a whole different cheese store. In a different country. JJ's "Star Trek" remake is an action picture set in space and simply named after it's predecessor. It simultaneously removes the emotional and historical core of the original series, replacing it instead with special effects, lens flair and an exorbitant amount of jiggle-cam. (All which passes for 'good filmmaking' these days.) It's almost as if you get more brownie points now the more your director of photography seem to suffer from Turrets Syndrome. He could have called his film anything else he wanted and I'm sure it would have been just as successful. I certainly would have respected it more if he had developed a whole original IP on his own sci-fi action ideas. But in the end he chose to wagon-hitch and already well established 43 year running intellectual property. Lowering one's standards to appeal to the lowest common denominator is a way to generate more money; nothing else. The original Star Trek series (and some films) were good in spite of their technical shortcoming, not successes because of them. The new Star Trek is a popular film because of it's special effects and high action, not it's dialog, writing or storytelling. The original's ideas and themes rooted in the classic writings of Melville, Masefield, D.H Lawrence, H.G Wells, Ellison and Shakespeare set in a fictional future have been replaced with car chases, gasoline explosions, and lots and lots of screaming. Remember, just because it's popular and makes money or that you even liked it, doesn't mean it's good. 😉 Personally, I'm rather indifferent about it. I neither liked nor dislike the film. I had some hopes to enjoy it, but in the end I saw through the glossy package and gleaned it had nothing substantive within. Hence my desire to see the next incarnation aspire to be something more than just the next competition for Jerry Bruckheimer's audience. If he can somehow get the dialog and story to match the same attention and money he spends on the SFX, he could make a great film indeed. Unfortunately, my cynical side says not to get my hopes up.

Blackstar on Dec 30, 2009

12

Here is a prodiction for 2010. Rumers will be rife with the success of Avatar in 3D that the Studio paramout might Deside to make Star Trek II the next generation the one after the last generation or what ever they will call the next Star Trek picture in 3D it would not suprise me. 😉

Cineprog on Dec 30, 2009

13

What do you *need*?

staatz on Dec 30, 2009

14

I'm glad someone replied to Blackstar so that he could submit the essay he's been working on. To add fuel to the fire, I agree with Alex.

gonnarentit on Dec 30, 2009

15

@14 Which part? That you (and/or) Alex doesn't care how cheesy something is and he'll enjoy it as long and the package is significantly glossy enough? I'd agree that may be true too. 😉

Blackstar on Dec 30, 2009

16

Yea, lets get the movies to be more like the series. Perhaps some heavy handed allegory set on a planet that looks somewhere between the 1960's and the Roman empire. Throw in some rubber monsters and bad acting and we'll have a perfect Star Trek movie.

name on Dec 30, 2009

17

After messing with the time line I'll be mighty pissed if JJ doesnt do at least 2 more films. On Blackstars comments I agree that it did lack some depth of the original movies but there was still plenty there to keep me happy and i really enjoyed the film. I'm hoping that JJ didnt want to try to fit too much into the film and focus on getting the characters set up for future films where he'll add a bit more to the plot

Ross on Dec 31, 2009

18

@6 - manxome Lol, um... no. People have been saying "He's dead Jim" and "Beam me up Scotty" for over 40 years. They are widely recognized pop-culture references. I don't think people are going to quoting lines like "Fire everything" and 'Why are you talking to me man" four decades from now. Only failure here is your understanding of the term 'quotable'. @16 - name (wow, that's original) No one is suggesting to make the films look like what's already been made. I'm saying greater attention needs to be made to improve the story, dialog and character development. Take off the fan-boy glasses for a second and work on that reading comprehension. SFX are all fine and good, but they are not the end all and be all of a film. This one, or any other. I'd argue that "Avatar" suffers from the exact same flaw as JJ's "Star Trek". Awesome special effects, horrible dialog. And I think that needs to change for the better. Honestly, it's hard to comprehend why anyone would argue that they don't want better writing in the films they watch. @17 - Ross Glad you liked it. I really, REALLY hope he brings more substance to the next one too.

Blackstar on Dec 31, 2009

19

I was just saying I don't think the original series sets a very high standard in the script, acting, or cheese department. I agree with you about Avatar, but not about Star Trek. I had no problem with the dialogue of the new star trek, and I thought the characters were very well done on all points. There is definite room for improvement in story and structure, but I didn't like it for the effects, I think the characters and their interaction were the strength of the movie.

name on Dec 31, 2009