First movie was an okay summer action movie at the expense of the previous universe's canon.
Second movie was a fucking stupid sandwich of political hot button issues, lazy homages, even lazier action scenes, fucking nothing for a space battle, 9/11, and a really odd out of place bikini scene compared to the first movie's naked girls scene.
This next movie is going to be the Star Trek: Insurrection of the new movie line. And if you thought that movie was good, you'll like anything.
What's weird is that after muttering about "da whitey iz bad in muh movies", he takes a movie that has a black woman in a lead role, demotes her to basically an extra, and adds a white woman. And then has this scene.
>>64538959 True. JJ doesn't give a shit about Star Trek. The guy had to make a movie with the IP he was given, and he made it into Star Wars because that's what he actually cares about.
I liked 09, although it's a lazy origin story in the context of original Trek, considering it would be fucking impossible for a fresh graduate of Starfleet Academy to become a fucking Captain. Things like that aside, it's a solid movie.
Into Darkness was lazy shit. It's full of lazy references, and lazily pulls shit from Wrath of Khan because "muh best Star Trek movie," and because it's the 2nd movie in the reboot series.
No it wouldn't. He just watched everyone he knew and love die horribly. They aren't coming back. They're dead and gone forever and so are all his friends. That nice house he probably earned working as a mining vessel captain? Sucked into a fucking black hole along with whatever weird family pet he may have had from Romulus. E ain't ever getting that back.
Even if he succeeded in his plans and then went back to the future where his home planet still existed that shit wouldn't be the same as how he remembered it in his time. The new course of history would have altered that. Butterfly effect and shit.
>>64538790 i honestly thought both 09 and into darkness were complete shit that didn't feel like star trek at all. jj doesn't know a thing about star trek, and i think it translates better to tv than to film
His entire motive for revenge was because he thought spock betrayed him and his people, abandoning them and letting his planet be destroyed.
You have a point that he probably would never be able to rebuild his old life the way it was, but at least his entire fucking planet wasn't destroyed and he could do something to prevent it from ever happening. If he learned his planet was there and he was still hell bent on revenge, then that's just shit writing for a villain.
>>64538790 I really liked the first new one, haven't seen the second one, as I have heard it is sort of a remake of Wrath of Khan. Not as deep as the TV series, which I grew up watching. TNG if anyone cares, but I also liked the original series as well. I think as a film, it does need more action though, unlike the show, which can be much more cerebral and meaningful. A film is never going to be the same as a tv show or a book, they are totally different mediums with different standards, but of course nobody really goes into a movie theater thinking that.
>>64539745 He has creative control over everything. If he doesn't like something, he can throw it out. It's not an excuse to say "well, he's just the director." He's soaking up those fat checks, and all the glory.
>>64539732 >>64539745 >>64539754 >I can't discern good from bad direction >direction consists entirely of camera placements >getting good performances, tone, pacing, mise-en-scene, and the ability to manage a large production aren't skills a director brings to the table
>>64539778 I would say almost all Star Trek movies have more action than the series, partially it's due to budgets, but as you said format is big thing, I mean look at Generations, it's 2 hours long movie and it feels like they took a episode plot from the TNG series and turned into movie and that is not going to work.
Then they made a proper TNG MOVIE, First Contact and it worked alot better. I personally rank it as the top three Star Trek movies along Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country
>>64539067 Wrath of Khan is a submarine movie with a Star Trek paint job. It's so much better than the other Trek movies because they lifted a winning formula from a much better genre and repurposed it for the sci-fi setting. It does have action and flashy special effects, but these serve the plot rather than just trying to shock and awe the viewer's senses. Trek has always oscillated between shitty effects due to its tv budget or too much pointless action and effects due to having shitty sci-fi scripts. Turning it into Hunt for the Space October fixed all that
>>64538790 The first one was good. Actually good - a love-letter to the franchise, with just the right balance between fan-service and freshness. Probably the fourth-best Star Trek movie, and better than any of the TNG ones. The second was absolute crap, an audition-tape for Star Wars that was as soulless as it was boring.
>>64538790 From the looks of the trailer from the newest each one gets worse and has less understanding of hat made the originals or Star Trek in general likable. The first I really didn't think was that bad, I excused a lot of stuff away because of what I thought they were trying to do with the universe. Darkness was up and down garbage, this latest trailer made me wish I was watching Into Darkness.
09 was a good Action Movie : Space film, but not a good Star Trek. I dont think they got a single thing regarding the spirit. Nimoy turned down Generations to stare in this one, he must have ask for bank
>>64541548 >09 was a good Action Movie : Space film Why do people say that? Action scenes were overdone and the plot made no sense and was basically a bunch of extremely unlikely coincidences happening and then the villain's motive was completely fucking stupid.
>>64541755 >Why do people say that? Action scenes were overdone and the plot made no sense and was basically a bunch of extremely unlikely coincidences happening The story in an action movie is just a way to set the action in motion. Of course it can have one, but it's not necessary. Terminator had a great story, Predator didn't and it didn't need one.
>>64542494 One thing I will give the new movies credit for is that they pretty much straight up told the viewer that they aren't erasing the established canon. They are creating their own new alternate timeline, and that's not even remotely a foreign concept for Star Trek. This leaves them with the option of returning to the old established universe, however unlikely that may be.
It also lets everyone from the writers to the fans say "fuck you, everything is still canon", despite what a few shitposters would try and have you believe.
>>64542656 We'll see when the new show airs. Star Trek is relatively niche, so they'll need that core audience to keep the raitings, but network executives are on par with parakeets and some dogs for intelligence.
>>64542881 Oh, even with what I just said, I do expect them to use the new universe. I just like the fact that they are able to keep the old universe canon even with a reboot. I mean, I know that shit really doesn't make any difference, and changes nothing, but it's still nice.
>>64542552 Terminator had a great story? Really? And I don't think Predator had a bad story. It had minimal story, but it wasn't full of coincidences and didn't feature a villain who time-travelled in the past and decides to avenge the death of his planet which isn't even dead yet instead of, like, trying to save it perhaps?
>>64542534 >real star trek is boring No, just unfashionable.The ST universe is an idealised utopian exploring society, it is totally the opposite of society now which is polarised and insular Look at all the shows come out today. They are all gritty realism, anti hero noir style shows. Even capeshit if you compare todays capeshit with capeshit of 90s 2000
>>64542552 Predator had some sort of story. It's just not overly complicated or determines what shit has to happen at what time. It's just: people are on a mission in the jungle to investigate and then they encounter the predator, get killed and in the end Arnie kills the predator. Today, you'd have a convoluted story about government agents or corporations wanting to catch the predator, the freed hostage would have a romantic subplot. The predator gets caught in the middle, then there's a secret Wayland Yutani base in the jungle and the jungle rebels were secretly another good guy faction that wanted to uncover it and suddenly the predator was a genetically modified supersoldier clone of Arnie all along...
Star Trek 2009 is a shallow but fun movie with some great effects like that battle at the start where the star ship gets shredded by the Romulan ship and when they suddenly come out of hyperspace into that battle wreckage.
Star Trek Into Darkness was insultingly bad and it's a shame as well because people had high hopes after 09. What the fuck were they thinking?
Next film could be hit or miss, terrible trailer, but it's written by Simon Pegg and he has actually said the Trailer was terrible piece of shit and the film is actually written to be closer to a real ToS episode.
I'm not going to base judgement after one trailer, but fuck that trailer was bad.
>>64542534 Star Trek was never made for blockbuster cinema. The first film was a high budget attempt at high concept scifi marred by a rehashed script. The TOS movies were entertaining comfy 80s films with intermediate budget that managed to be profitable because they weren't so expensive and could cater to there audience plus some more people. Generations was completely ruined by the premise that required Kirk and Picard to team up in a fist fight. And like all TNG movies it was basically a second rate 90s action movie. They never got the budget or marketing a real action blockbuster would get, yet were written like them although they didn't have the characters or actors for this. Results were awkward action moments for the casts, skimping on special fx and comic book villains.
JJ-Trek was the first time since TMP that Star Trek would get a large budget and corresponding marketing.
The sad thing about Star Trek Reboot is that The Martian, Prometheus, Ex Machina, Gravity etc show you can do serious sci-fi and still be a success, in fact, The Martian has already had a better box office than Into Darkness.
They killed Star Trek for no reason, people want real sci-fi, with Star Trek what they need to do is get someone like Ridley Scott or even Blomkamp or Nolan aboard to do a film.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.