J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek"

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 5354
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek"

Post by Dacey » April 21st, 2006, 10:12 am

http://comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=14199

I wonder who will play Spock and Kirk? :D
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18599
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » April 21st, 2006, 3:50 pm

Jim Carrey and Sean Astin... :)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7827
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » April 21st, 2006, 3:53 pm

No, James Franco and Toby Macguire! :)
"That’s right, folks, it’s gonna be a Meg episode, stick around for the fun.
Here’s the clicker...no one’d blame ya.”

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 5354
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Post by Dacey » April 21st, 2006, 6:57 pm

Tim Allen and Christopher Walken! :D

Seriously, any real guesses? ;)
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7827
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » April 21st, 2006, 7:36 pm

Hmmm....no idea.

I think it would have to be unknowns who look A LOT like Shatner and Nimoy, otherwise it just wouldn't be convincing.

Will Bones and Scotty be in it too?
"That’s right, folks, it’s gonna be a Meg episode, stick around for the fun.
Here’s the clicker...no one’d blame ya.”

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1347
Joined: January 23rd, 2006
Location: The Middle of Nowhere

Post by eddievalient » April 21st, 2006, 10:23 pm

Personally I don't care who's in it as long as they take the role seriously and don't go for camp. I'm of the opinion that most Star Trek is good (I never was able to get into Enterprise, but I only saw two episodes so maybe I should give it more of a chance, eh?). I especially like Deep Space Nine. I've only recently started watching it, but already it has become my favorite Star Trek series, primarily because of Quark and Gul Dukat.

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18599
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » April 22nd, 2006, 3:14 am

Chevy Chase and John Belushi?? ;)

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 5354
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Post by Dacey » April 22nd, 2006, 5:45 pm

Okay, I know, I know...

Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal.

;)
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 37
Joined: February 20th, 2006
Location: Planet Eta Vulpeculae II
Contact:

Post by Hoagiebot » April 23rd, 2006, 4:57 am

Boy oh boy do these Hollywood types have a very short memory. Doesn't anyone in Hollywood remember that treating a Trek film like a dumbed down total-action movie, like what they tried to do with "Star Trek: Nemesis," is a bad idea? That film bombed at the box ofrfice and for a very good reason. I don't know if that is what Paramount intends to do with this particular Trek film, but it definitely looks like that is the direction they are leaning towards by hiring on an action-movie director such as J.J. Abrams. I am sorry, but I don't want my Trek films looking like "Lost" or "Mission Impossible: III."

At the same time, I am not exactly sure if I am thrilled that they are going back in time to see Kirk and Spock's early life either. I love Kirk and Spock, but this is yet another prime example of Hollywood's current trend of being as completely uncreative as possible again. How about something new for a change? I would be up to trying a new crew and a new ship in a new situation. Give Wesley Crusher a ship. That could possibly prove to be interesting, right? At least it would be different!

Another reason why I am not really all that thrilled that they are messing with Kirk and Spock's younger lives is because after that Star Trek: Nemesis fiasco, I don't know if I can trust any of today's Hollywood writers to develop a good story anymore. I would like to hope that a very creative and inventive screenplay will be written for this film, but I unfortunately have the feeling that this will turn out to be another hack-job that will only be trying to make money off of the Star Trek name.

To be fair, Star Trek movies must be extremely hard to write for because the Star Trek fandom consists of everything from technical detail-spewing nerds to real NASA rocket scientists and top-notch physicists. Therefore, you have to find a balance between high adrenaline action and cerebral science and philosophy in Star Trek films. If you go too cerebral, you get a real snoozer like 1979's Star Trek: The Motion Picture. If you go too far over to the action side you get disasters such as Star Trek: Nemesis. As far as I am concerned, the person who balanced both action and intelligence better than any other was the director of both Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Nicholas Meyer. I mean, almost every Trek fan will agree that both Star Trek II and Star Trek IV rocked, and were at least two of best films if not the two best films!

With that in mind, all I can ask is why, WHY are they having this film directed by a director with no experience with Star Trek such as J.J. Abrams, and not doing whatever it takes to bring on board the master director of Trek films, Nicholas Meyer? I don't know what Meyer is up to these days, but everyone has their price so why don't they just pay his and get him involved with this film? That would at least give me a glimmer of hope that this film could tun out to be worth seeing in this vapid wasteland that we know of as Hollywood entertainment?
There's a 68.71% chance that I'm right.
END OF LINE

[b][i][url=http://www.projectdestinystudios.com/]Project Destiny Studios™[/url]
[url=http://www.foxee.net/]Foxee.Net - Home of Foxee™ the Interactive Arctic Blue Fox![/url][/i][/b]

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 5354
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Post by Dacey » April 23rd, 2006, 2:10 pm

Actually, I've always felt that the earlier "Star Trek" films could've used more when it came to action sequences. This may end up being a good thing, who knows?
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18599
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » April 23rd, 2006, 4:17 pm

I just saw M:I3 this afternoon. In a word...it stinks.

I'm not sure what all the fuss about Abrams is right now. Hopefully he will crash and burn at trying to kickstart the Treks and he will go away...

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 5354
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Post by Dacey » April 25th, 2006, 7:16 pm

"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18599
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » April 26th, 2006, 7:51 am

The plot thickens?

I read that story last night and he basically confirms everything in the Paramount/Variety story: he's doing Trek and it could well be a Kirk & Co story!

Variety: "Abrams to produce and direct the 11th "Trek" feature"
Abrams: "People learned that I was producing a 'Star Trek' film, that I had an option to direct it"

Variety: "will center on the early days of seminal "Trek" characters James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, including their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and first outer space mission"
Abrams: "We've made a pact not to discuss any specifics [but] Those characters are so spectacular. I just think that...you know, they could live again"


Why does this guy try and cause so much mystery and confusion? Okay, he may not end up directing it, but he's certainly involved, right?

Pretty simple to me...

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7827
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » April 26th, 2006, 10:55 am

I just saw M:I3 this afternoon. In a word...it stinks.
How come?

I've only seen the first one. Ah...Ethan Hunt.

:roll:
"That’s right, folks, it’s gonna be a Meg episode, stick around for the fun.
Here’s the clicker...no one’d blame ya.”

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18599
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » April 26th, 2006, 6:24 pm

Only seen the first one? Then you've seen the most "fun" (and therefore best).

I'll give that this new one is better than M:I-2, but then anything's got top beat that with its dull, dull, dull mid-section and overblown Woo-hoo ending (yes, John, we all saww "Face/Off" too).

The story's okay, but the direction is lack-lustre, kind of like the opening of The World Is Not Enough, where all the cuts come about two seconds too late. Abrams seems to be too in love with his shots to cut early enough to keep momentum going.

Plus some really silly stuff: one bit that really got me was where a female spy starts taking secret pics of villain Philip Seymour Hoffman and they've added in little flashes as her camera goes off - which NO ONE else - especially him - seems to notice. Full of silly stuff like that which you can usually dismiss with the "suspension of believability" rule, but that stuck out on this occaision.

Yet again, a M:I film fails to live up to the original series... :(

Post Reply