Star Trek 3 to Film Next Year?! Comments - Mania.com



COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Showing items 11 - 20 of 25
<<  <  1 2 3 >  >>  
monkeyfoot 7/15/2013 7:31:04 AM

The plot will involve hamsters. Lots of hamsters.

redhairs99 7/15/2013 8:42:51 AM

I'm looking forward to a 3rd go round with this crew. I think they've done quite a good job with the characters.  Not sure how JJ intends to work on Trek and Wars simultaneously, but what do I know.

It looks like Paramount is at least attempting to fix the error in judgement that they made last time, but jumping on a sequel immediately rather than waiting to shoot for 3 years.  I know Into Darkness did okay numbers at BO, but not the numbers they had expected.  I feel that's largely due to the 4 year gap between releases.  The first one in 2009 got a lot of great buzz when it came out from the general audience (not the Trekkies mind you).  Then after 4 years, they lost all that great buzz they had gained, so it didn't perform as well.  Add to that it was a crowded summer schedule already and you have the reason for the lower than expected BO.

ztigr 7/15/2013 10:53:59 AM

 Good, the sooner the filming the more likely an original 5 year mission story.

jimvo99 7/15/2013 11:42:03 AM

Sorry guys. JJ was on Howard Stern a few weeks back and he stated that he will be involved with the Trek franchise but he is done directing them. The interview may be on Youtube look for it.

jorson28 7/15/2013 11:48:57 AM

The cast doesn't know jack. That was proven years ago when Saldana predicted that filming on what became "Into Darkness" would start in 2010.  They're just trying to keep up anticipation and excitement for the franchise. My guess is that there will be one more film with this cast and that either someone else will direct, with Abrams as a very hands-on executive producer, or Paramount will once again have to wait on Abrams and we'll have another 3.5 to 4 year wait.  In any case, as fun as it can be sometimes, I think this version of Trek is a flash in the pan.  Most of the people that like it are the ones that wouldn't have touched Star Trek in the past, and I don't think it was ONLY Abrams' overwhelming love of STAR WARS that got him to jump ship from Paramount to Disney to do Episode 7 before finishing out the Trek trilogy.  Word is that while Paramount has the film rights to Trek, Viacom still controls merchandising rights to the original characters in their original TV incarnations and refused to quit selling merchandise with the original cast's likenesses at the behest of Abrams, who actually wanted to try to all but completely REPLACE the original cast's association with the characters of Kirk, Spock and the others by only selling merchandise with the new cast's likenesses.  It makes sense considering that at first, Abrams refused to touch Star Wars because he was already committed to HIS version of Trek. Apparently, now that he's been blocked from truly stealing Trek away from its past and completely reinventing it in the public's consciousness, he's probably lost a lot of interest.  Either way, the franchise seriously needs some new writers.  "Into Darkness" has a very promising first half, but then feels as if the writers either ran out of time or didn't know how to craft a truly original and satisfying conclusion, so they gathered and strung together bits and pieces of previous, often better episodes and movies (namely 1982's WRATH OF KHAN), switched some details around and passed it off as an ending.  I also think it was a mistake for them to make "Into Darkness" such a direct continuation of the last film, waiting until the very last scene to start the 5 year mission, which should have encompassed at least 2 films and began with this year's entry. 

hfc7036 7/15/2013 2:55:02 PM

 Bring it on!  Make this one a little more about exploration though.  We're ready!

trollman 7/15/2013 4:48:50 PM

Abramstrek is nothing compared to Roddenberry's vision. Abrams can make a flashy movie that goes boom and has lots of action but no heart or soul. This last attempt by Abrams was, better, but until you find a writer that truly loves Roddenberrys work and embraces the true vision of TOS you'll never reprise the real TREK.

I think the actors did a wonderful job with the scripts they were given and the direction they received. the special effects were good if not just a little over the top and distracting. (lens flares anyone?) but that script (JJ's first movie) just didn't have any real feeling or even a semblance of TREK-ness. If todays audience doesn't understand TREK then don't water it down ( or dumb it down) for the masses, stay true to the source. Don't blow up Vulcan just to thumb your nose at tradition and add insult to injury. JJ's latest film was as I said , better, but still just not as good as Wrath of Kahn or even Search for Spock.  JJ should stick with his own ORIGINAL works which he does best. IMO

 

SinCity 7/15/2013 11:06:05 PM

 Redhairs99, while I agree that the four year gap didn't help, ID's box office was probably also harmed by the lazy writ in ng and character development, the gaping plot holes, and the parody disguised as homage that permeated this film. 

 

Just sayin....

SinCity 7/15/2013 11:09:18 PM

 *Writing..... stupid Android touchscreen keyboard....

 

SinCity 7/15/2013 11:11:14 PM

 Redhairs99, while I agree that the four year gap didn't help, ID's box office was probably also harmed by the lazy writ in ng and character development, the gaping plot holes, and the parody disguised as homage that permeated this film. 

 

Just sayin....

<<  <  1 2 3 >  >>  

ADD A COMMENT

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.