Jacquie Posted June 28, 2015 Report Posted June 28, 2015 This film likely ends the Trek film revival for a few years. The Bad Robot produced Trek have been somewhat of a disaster. When movies bring in $257,730,019 (ST) and $228,778,661 (ST:ID) at the box office they are not going to stop making them any time soon.
The Unknown Poster Posted June 28, 2015 Report Posted June 28, 2015 Paramount was disappointed with the Trek returns. Rumors has it their deal with Bad Rogot is up next uear. And either way their deal with CBs to license Trek ends next year. So new deals will have to be made. paramount hasn't given Trek the support of a blockbuster. And they seem unsure of why direction to take. They fired Bob Orci as writer after giving him two shots at a script for Trek 3 and fired him as director. They are filming right now and the script isn't finished. They are rushing the film to release in one year. They did re-up Pins and Quinto for a 4th but it was a throw in to those actors demanding raises during a dispute over contracts. Bad Robot was hired to be the Trek Czars but JJ bolted to Star Wars after some disputes. It wouldn't surprise me the future of Star Trek is debated after the next film. There is speculation CBS wants to make a TV series. The problem with the films is they created a new universe. But CBS likes the old universe. Bad Robot wanted the new universe thinking they could control all derivatives of said universe but CBS wouldn't stop marketing TOS. It's certainly possible CBS extends the deal with oaramount but the questions are, if CBS makes a TV show why would they want a TV series and a film franchise taking place in different universes. And ofcourse the bigger issue is the split between CBS and Paramount and how that has impacted Trek. Never under estimate Paramounts stupidity. They've never seemed to understand trek which is a franchise ready-made for the "cinematic universe" treatment. Even though the films made money the last one received mixed reviews. They understood that with Tranformers and how they are now bringing on board a lot of respected writers to revamp that franchise. Will they do it with Star Trek?
FrostyWinnipeg Posted June 29, 2015 Report Posted June 29, 2015 That's strange I thought Quinto has said this would be his last time as Spock. If it were me they'd end the next film with the children of Spock and Kirk playing together. Cue sunset.
The Unknown Poster Posted June 29, 2015 Report Posted June 29, 2015 That's strange I thought Quinto has said this would be his last time as Spock. If it were me they'd end the next film with the children of Spock and Kirk playing together. Cue sunset. Are you suggesting since the Supreme Court ruling, they should this Universe Kirk/Spock marry each other and adopt children? :-) Both Quinto and Pine only had three movie deals (they all did). How it works is, the actors have raises built into their contracts but if a film does very well, the studio will give them a raise above and beyond the contractual minimum. Star Trek was not considered a huge hit so Paramount & Skydance did not give the actors raises above their minimums. The contracts were for X amount of time (7 years I believe) and because Bad Robot took their sweet time between movies, Pine's people considered the contracts timed out and void. Rather then go to court over it, Paramount & Skydance re-negotiated bigger raises (reported Pine is getting $6 million compared to $600,000 for the first one) and got Pine & Quinto to agree to a 4th film. There's no indication they intend to make a 4th. I think it was more that the studio wanted to get something in return. So if Trek 3 defies the odds and is a big hit, they have the two leads for a 4th film.
tacklewasher Posted June 29, 2015 Report Posted June 29, 2015 Anyone expecting Terminator:Genisys to be good? Looking at the critic reviews on RT, doesn't sound so interesting. I've go no desire for another ST movie. The last one sucked big time. Who (except Futurama) puts a Starship in the ocean?
The Unknown Poster Posted June 29, 2015 Report Posted June 29, 2015 Anyone expecting Terminator:Genisys to be good? Looking at the critic reviews on RT, doesn't sound so interesting. I've go no desire for another ST movie. The last one sucked big time. Who (except Futurama) puts a Starship in the ocean? You really get the sense with STID that the writers made a list of big "scenes" they wanted and then tried to put some sort of connecting story between them. Im sure the idea of the Enterprise rising out of the ocean was great (it looked fantastic) but made little sense. But their standard response was "this is a new universe". Except they wanted to jerk off fans with canonical references every three minutes to show their Trek cred. Just brutal. Khan goes from a dark skinned latino playing an Indian to a pasty brit. Makes sense. Im SUPER looking forward to Terminator!
FrostyWinnipeg Posted June 29, 2015 Report Posted June 29, 2015 Anyone expecting Terminator:Genisys to be good? Looking at the critic reviews on RT, doesn't sound so interesting. I've go no desire for another ST movie. The last one sucked big time. Who (except Futurama) puts a Starship in the ocean? Great opening though. Best part of the movie.
Logan007 Posted June 30, 2015 Report Posted June 30, 2015 Terminator looks like it's going to be very meh. But you never know how many people will go because crap movies sometimes get the big box office hit cause of all it's 'SPLOSIONS!
The Unknown Poster Posted June 30, 2015 Report Posted June 30, 2015 Terminator looks like it's going to be very meh. But you never know how many people will go because crap movies sometimes get the big box office hit cause of all it's 'SPLOSIONS! Im very much looking forward to it. I may even see it alone if I cant convince anyone to see it with me. While I am somewhat of a critic of creative endeavors like film and TV, I look at things as far as the intent. Terminator is not going to be The Shawshank Redemption. But if it's entertaining and well made and, most importantly to me, logical within the context of the franchise, I will enjoy it. And ofcourse, part of it is nostalgia.
17to85 Posted June 30, 2015 Report Posted June 30, 2015 Anyone expecting Terminator:Genisys to be good? Looking at the critic reviews on RT, doesn't sound so interesting. I've go no desire for another ST movie. The last one sucked big time. Who (except Futurama) puts a Starship in the ocean? You really get the sense with STID that the writers made a list of big "scenes" they wanted and then tried to put some sort of connecting story between them. Im sure the idea of the Enterprise rising out of the ocean was great (it looked fantastic) but made little sense. But their standard response was "this is a new universe". Except they wanted to jerk off fans with canonical references every three minutes to show their Trek cred. Just brutal. Khan goes from a dark skinned latino playing an Indian to a pasty brit. Makes sense. Im SUPER looking forward to Terminator! This is how most big action movies are written these days and it's making them suck because of it. just tying together big action sequences with little regard to proper character development or story telling. Orci and his sidekick who's name escapes me now are the biggest perpetrators of this and everything they touch stinks. Logan007 1
The Unknown Poster Posted June 30, 2015 Report Posted June 30, 2015 Alex Kurtzman. But Orci and Kurtzman dissolved their relationship recently. They turn out very shallow paint by number scripts with lousy character development The only thing that shocks me is they supposedly did an uncredited re-write of Watchmen which is one of my favourite movies. I feel dirty now.
Taynted_Fayth Posted July 1, 2015 Author Report Posted July 1, 2015 Hopefully this movie leads to Terminator B.C. : a machine through time, and have a machine attempt to kill the worlds first human and just outright make humans extinct before they even start. But encounter loyal dinosaur/prehistoric pets they didnt bargin for, since the are specialists at understanding, infiltration and combat vs man, not beast lol jk that would suck ass
Logan007 Posted July 2, 2015 Report Posted July 2, 2015 LOL...you would create a paradox if you did that. Basically, if they wiped out humans, then there would never be humans to invent Skynet, and Skynet would cease to exist. In which case no one would have ever went back to kill humans, so humans would still exist. Time travel only works if you change something that doesn't create a paradox. So something that wouldn't cause you to not exist, or the time machine to not exist, or the reason why you're going back in time to not exist. So if I went back in time and killed someone that I hated, then I would never have gone back in time and that person would still exist. Oh time travel...you *****.
17to85 Posted July 2, 2015 Report Posted July 2, 2015 LOL...you would create a paradox if you did that. Basically, if they wiped out humans, then there would never be humans to invent Skynet, and Skynet would cease to exist. In which case no one would have ever went back to kill humans, so humans would still exist. Time travel only works if you change something that doesn't create a paradox. So something that wouldn't cause you to not exist, or the time machine to not exist, or the reason why you're going back in time to not exist. So if I went back in time and killed someone that I hated, then I would never have gone back in time and that person would still exist. Oh time travel...you *****. But what if you just get into diverging timelines when you go back in time and there's an infinite amount of timelines out ther... I've gone cross eyed...
Logan007 Posted July 2, 2015 Report Posted July 2, 2015 LOL...you would create a paradox if you did that. Basically, if they wiped out humans, then there would never be humans to invent Skynet, and Skynet would cease to exist. In which case no one would have ever went back to kill humans, so humans would still exist. Time travel only works if you change something that doesn't create a paradox. So something that wouldn't cause you to not exist, or the time machine to not exist, or the reason why you're going back in time to not exist. So if I went back in time and killed someone that I hated, then I would never have gone back in time and that person would still exist. Oh time travel...you *****. But what if you just get into diverging timelines when you go back in time and there's an infinite amount of timelines out ther... I've gone cross eyed... That's parallel universe's. One of the theory's is, if we go back in time we don't actually go back into our own timeline, but a different one. So if we ever make it back to our own time, nothing has been changed.
Logan007 Posted July 2, 2015 Report Posted July 2, 2015 I feel like I should be doing a youtube video like Sheldon does on TBBT called "Fun with Flags" except with time travel. "Toying with Time Travel"
Mark F Posted July 2, 2015 Report Posted July 2, 2015 "Rick, Morty, and Jerry are held captive by aliens in a virtual reality in this M. Night Shimaylian style episode. Rick attempts escape multiple times, only to discover that there are multiple virtual realities encased in one another. However, despite system glitches, Jerry remains completely unaware while trying to sell his advertising slogan for apples. Rick finally games the aliens by giving them a fake recipe for the concoction they were seeking to retrieve from him. The aliens send Rick and Jerry on their way and later explode from the concoction."
mbrg Posted July 2, 2015 Report Posted July 2, 2015 Terminator is not going to be The Shawshank Redemption. Uhhh, next time a "spoiler alert" would be appreciated!!!
FrostyWinnipeg Posted July 3, 2015 Report Posted July 3, 2015 Terminator vs Predator As for the whole time-travel thing you could always take the Star Trek way out and go back in time change the future but you still exist.
Logan007 Posted July 3, 2015 Report Posted July 3, 2015 Terminator vs Predator As for the whole time-travel thing you could always take the Star Trek way out and go back in time change the future but you still exist. Don't get me started on how poorly they executed the Star Trek time change.
The Unknown Poster Posted July 3, 2015 Report Posted July 3, 2015 Terminator vs Predator As for the whole time-travel thing you could always take the Star Trek way out and go back in time change the future but you still exist. Don't get me started on how poorly they executed the Star Trek time change. The Star Trek 2009 time travel gimmick sounded great on paper but was terribly executed. Firstly it ignored 50 years of Star Trek canon that says you can go back in time and change the future. They now go with the Multiple Worlds thing. Fail. Secondly, the writers did it so they could be "free from canon" but they LOVE invoking canon whenever they want to show how smart they are (they usually fail). They only ignore canon when the canon violations are as a result of their crappy writing.
17to85 Posted July 3, 2015 Report Posted July 3, 2015 if they'd actually stuck to the ignoring canon thing with Star Trek it could have been the best thing to happen to the franchise because it's so bogged down with ridiculous canon it's unworkable. Instead they decided that Into Darkness should be a crappy Wrath of Kahn/Undiscovered Country mashup with nods to every piece of canon out there.
The Unknown Poster Posted July 3, 2015 Report Posted July 3, 2015 Totally disagree. And agree actually. Canon should be embraced. Not perverted. Think of it this way, you have two audiences. The hardcore trek fans tjay will always be there. If they love the film they will see it ten times, buy all the merch and spread the positive word. Then there is the mainstream movie goer. That's the audience the studio was trying to get. You don't need to ignore canon to get the wide audience because they don't know any better anyway. But ignoring or twisting canon alienates the existing fan base. The problem with STID was it alienated the fans with a bad perverse twist on canon and was too convoluted for general audiences to understand. It was the worst of both world. The general audience knows Kirk, Spock, Enterprise, Klingons etc. don't change that stuff. For example, mentioning Nurse Chapel. That's a canon reference. Makes trek fans happy. If the general audience doesn't know Chapel, they are none the wiser. They dknt even realize they were subjected to a canon reference. There are a million ways to invoke canon and not alienate the audience. Using khan was all wrong because it broke their own rules. They said the new universe was the same until Nero arrived in the 09 movie. Then why was khan completely different? Plus STID was a war on terror analogy that took the position that the US was bad and the terrorists were just misunderstood. I think that was a message that North Americans were tired of. The writer Orci is a "truther" and wrote a bad plot. If the war on terror plot explored both sides it would have been way better. The real star was Admiral Marcus. But he was a mustache twirling **** Cheney villain. These films are just poorly written. And neither the writers nor producers not studio understand their audience. That's why Orci was fired when he was trying to get Willim Shatner. Which was a great idea by the way. But the studio is so afraid of doing a Star Trek movie that they ran the other way and demanded the new writer make the star trek film less treky.
FrostyWinnipeg Posted July 4, 2015 Report Posted July 4, 2015 Okay I love Benedict Cumberbatch but unbelievably miscast in ST:ID Logan007 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now