|
01-11-2010, 01:24 PM | |
Take a Chill Pill
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South Carolina
Casino cash: $7829900
|
Star Trek 12 Gets Release Date
I'm not sure if its Star Trek 12 or Star Trek 2, but the release date is June 29, 2012.
http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/01/11...-nothing-else/ UPDATE: Paramount has confirmed to MTV that the projected release date for the "Star Trek" sequel is indeed June 29, 2012. This counts as news, but there's not much to it. We all know there's a "Star Trek" sequel coming. Hell, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, writers/producers of the May reboot, were talking about sequel possibilities as far back as the week after the first movie came out. Now we have a date to pin our hopes to: June 29, 2012. Nothing else is known or announced, so don't ask. Maybe director J.J. Abrams will return to helm the sequel, maybe he won't. Maybe Khan will be the villain, maybe not. For all we know, the plan is to give us an epic "Star Trek Meets Star Wars" crossover. Could happen, right? The news comes from a variety of sources, including Ain't It Cool News and Box Office Mojo, but there's no Paramount-issued press release that I can find. The information ran through some trustworthy sources, but we've yet to receive comment from the studio directly. Regardless, there really hasn't ever been any doubt that we'd be seeing more "Star Trek." Abrams' take on the series made it friendly to an entirely new, much wider audience than its ever known before. Were you anything less than certain that a "Star Trek" sequel was coming eventually? Where would you like the story to go from where it is now? Any specific hopes for the sequel? |
Posts: 44,565
|
06-18-2013, 04:05 PM | #871 |
MVP
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Lenexa, KS
Casino cash: $1896717
|
|
Posts: 14,404
|
06-18-2013, 08:48 PM | #872 |
Has a particular set of skills
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the water
Casino cash: $1578962
VARSITY
|
The Klingon war and how it started seems a natural for the next movie. Definitely something fans could get behind and would have a chance for many action sequences.
__________________
Mind you own damn business |
Posts: 79,887
|
06-18-2013, 10:23 PM | #873 |
The Boom Boom Room
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Far Beyond Comprehension
Casino cash: $-597187
|
Way back when the Klingon's were the Trek's metaphor for the Soviets so in the Alt universe it would be fitting to see what would happen when the Federation ****s up their "Cold War" and it turns into a "Galactic Vietnam"
__________________
|
Posts: 42,525
|
06-19-2013, 09:48 AM | #874 |
MVP
Join Date: Aug 2003
Casino cash: $7737309
|
Was a big fan of DS9 once the Founders were discovered and started a war. Would love a darker spinoff new TV show about the war and maybe the Enterprise crew could kick it off with a movie. Maybe center around two bases right behind enemy lines (one Federation, one Klingon) with excursions to planets where control/occupation shifts regularly and tons of space battles! Would love to see the story told by both sides, and the Klingon culture/history is extremely rich enough to provide some great story telling.
__________________
|
Posts: 10,620
|
06-19-2013, 10:13 AM | #875 |
Rookie
Join Date: Jun 2013
Casino cash: $10004900
|
I found this to be incredibly disappointing. I thought Abrams did a good job of Star Trek 2009, but I felt this movie tried to borrow too much from Wrath of Khan. I didn't really believe in the friendship between Kirk and Spock either, there was no real chemistry there for me.
|
Posts: 1
|
06-19-2013, 11:57 AM | #876 | ||||||
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
Casino cash: $10053648
|
|
||||||
Posts: 88,960
|
06-19-2013, 12:17 PM | #877 |
sorta mod-ish
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: KC North
Casino cash: $2081616
|
Suprising. I've seen the movie twice, and enjoyed it both times. What held this movie back in your opinion, Dane? Is this Abrams losing his appeal, or was the movie just a lot worse than I thought it was?
|
Posts: 103,234
|
06-19-2013, 12:40 PM | #878 | |||||||
oxymoron
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: OP/KC/Whatever
Casino cash: $9556299
|
Quote:
Star Trek (2009) - Foreign: $127,950,427 (33.2%); Worldwide: $385,680,446 (not a 33-day number, this is total). Star Trek into Darkness (2013) - Foreign: $201,700,000 (48.8%); Worldwide: $413,432,773 |
|||||||
Posts: 58,682
|
06-19-2013, 12:41 PM | #879 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
Casino cash: $10053648
|
Quote:
Also, as previously discussed, the domestic marketing was horrid. Paramount should have had Star Trek blazing constantly on Showtime, Spike, FX and even on CBS (like a Sunday Night movie of the week) for months in advance. Instead, they did nothing. Also, the whole "Is he or isn't he" Khan thing really worked against them. If they would have just come out said "Yes, it's Khan!", then they could have had a different marketing strategy, which would have included better trailers, posters, etc. When it finally became known to audiences, most people were like "meh". Finally, I think that intelligent audiences have cooled on Abrams and especially, Lindelof. The Lost debacle was bad enough (with even George R.R. Martin chiming in at one point saying he didn't want to pull a "Lost" and **** up the ending of GoT) but Prometheus was just a killer. Couple that with the word getting out rather quickly that this film was more of a rehash than something new a fresh (alternate timeline, hello?) and it was just too many factors for it to overcome. |
|
Posts: 88,960
|
06-19-2013, 04:30 PM | #880 | |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Antonio Tx.
Casino cash: $2504454
|
Quote:
__________________
Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning: Matt once made a very nice play in Seattle where he spun away from a pass rusher and hit Bowe off his back foot for a first down. One of the best plays Matt has ever made. |
|
Posts: 66,914
|
06-19-2013, 06:46 PM | #881 |
Supporter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Scott City KS
Casino cash: $804734
|
I still loved it. I had a big douchey grin on my face the whole goddamned time.
I know I'm in the minority, but I really hope I get more. |
Posts: 57,702
|
06-24-2013, 11:51 AM | #882 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Some Dude's asshole
Casino cash: $8021398
|
Quote:
However, I disagree with your statement about "intelligent audiences." Maybe you've cooled on Abrams and especially Lindelof (if you ever liked either of them to begin with). And maybe some of your friends have as well (maybe you're speaking specifically about "insiders" and people you know, in which case, I can't speak to those minds). But there are plenty of intelligent people who still enjoy their work. George RR Martin has taken back some of the vitriol he spewed about LOST. Because he, like other "intelligent audience members" misinterpreted it. And I'll also disagree that Into Darkness was more rehash than something new. There is certainly some rehash. I suppose there's enough for me to understand someone being turned off by it, but it's still minimal. |
|
Posts: 3,834
|
06-24-2013, 11:51 AM | #883 |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Some Dude's asshole
Casino cash: $8021398
|
|
Posts: 3,834
|
06-24-2013, 12:29 PM | #884 |
World's Best Boss
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bronco Country
Casino cash: $5004654
|
To me, comparing The Wrath of Khan to Into Darkness is similar to comparing Good Will Hunting to the fabled Good Will Humping.
I am sure I would derive plenty of "enjoyment and satisfaction" from the latter title and heck, I'm sure I (and many others here) would view it on multiple occasions. However, in no way does that mean that the stimulating storylines found in Good Will Humping come close to the Academy Award winning screenplay of which the it was erected upon. TL;DR I thought Into Darkness was quite entertaining and do not believe it prevents anyone (even those who hated it the most) from watching/owning The Wrath of Khan Last edited by Chiefspants; 06-24-2013 at 01:09 PM.. |
Posts: 18,467
|
06-24-2013, 12:41 PM | #885 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Some Dude's asshole
Casino cash: $8021398
|
Quote:
But would you say that Into Darkness is not worth seeing because of Wrath of Kahn? Or would you say that Wrath of Kahn prevents (or should prevent) anyone from watching/owning Into Darkness? |
|
Posts: 3,834
|
|
|