[Athens]

Well its finally out the official release date for the next Star Trek movie is May 17th 2013.

Star Trek Sequel To Be Released May 17, 2013 – In 3D | TrekMovie.com

It is also going to be in 3D. They wanted a Summer release date, the movie could easily have been finished my Christmas 2012. I am wondering who the villain will be, what race will be the focus of the next movie. Since it is a new time line they don't need to follow anything from the previous treks.

I dont know if I will see it in 3D, I really don't like 3D movies. Side note this is also the longest delay between major start movies at over 4 years with its final release date. Im happy JJ is working on the next one though. I like his style.

[olePigeon]

Star Trek is not generally known for its tightly nit plots, but Abrams brings plot holes to a new level. The movie was entertaining until I noticed the lens flares, then my OCD kicked in and I hated the movie. As a generic, turn your brain off sci-fi flick, it's OK. As a Star Trek flick, it's horrible.

When a movie is designed to be 3D, that only means they're sacrificing plot and dialogue for cheap gags and unnecessary (and often laughable) movements towards the camera, often breaking the 4th wall simply to achieve a visual effect.

Given that the plot is most likely going to have bigger holes than the grand canyon, taking away from it to give the 3D treatment is unimaginable. Might as well have had Michael Bay do the film.

[reader50]

I'll be skipping Trek movies until Abrams moves on. They changed the people, the ships, and the timeline. It's not even Sci-Fi ... more of a low-thought action flick in space. There's none of the thought-provoking situations, moral quandaries, and wonder that Star Trek is built on.

They should have given the Trek franchise to Ronald D Moore after he finished with BSG.

[Athens]

I was pretty happy with the 2009 movie. I was expecting the worst and came out pleasantly surprised. And this is true for a few friends that originally held off on seeing it and eventually did. Im curious about the plot holes ole? What did you find missing?

[imitchellg5]

I really enjoyed the 2009 movie and I'm looking forward to 2013. I'm just more of a casual Trek fan though.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I'll be skipping Trek movies until Abrams moves on. They changed the people, the ships, and the timeline. It's not even Sci-Fi ... more of a low-thought action flick in space. There's none of the thought-provoking situations, moral quandaries, and wonder that Star Trek is built on.

Can't wait to see Capt. Kirk, hanging from a ledge, in 3D.

[Eug]

I enjoyed the 2009 movie too. The plot made no sense though, even ignoring the prior ST universe.

I will not be seeing the next one in 3D. Just 2D for me. I hate 3D movies. I just hope they don't dumb it down even further to incorporate the 3D.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I enjoyed the 2009 movie too. The plot made no sense though, even ignoring the prior ST universe.

I will not be seeing the next one in 3D. Just 2D for me. I hate 3D movies. I just hope they don't dumb it down even further to incorporate the 3D.

The only movie I really enjoyed seeing in 3D was TRON. The 3D simply was used to add depth rather than effect and I thought it was very classy.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Im curious about the plot holes ole? What did you find missing?

• Why did they dig a hole before dropping a quantum black hole? It would pass through crust like vacuum and would assume an elliptical orbit within Vulcan. Also, it would take years (if not centuries) for a quantum black hole in the few-tons range to grow big enough to finish off the planet.

• Why did the engine room turn into a brewery? Star ships are driven by plasma technology because they need the higher power density. That's what EPS conduits conduct. A large-diameter cooling pipe with beer (water) inside and inefficient doglegs could not conduct excess heat adequately. Not when the engine uses antimatter reactions.

• Why did (old) Spock sit ineffectively in the Vulcan system for years without escaping or signalling anyone?

• Why didn't anyone suggest fixing the timeline after losing a founding world of the Federation?

• How did the Romulan ship survive even temporarily while superimposed on a smallish black hole?

• If the Romulans were from the old timeline, why didn't they look like old-timeline Romulans?

• Ditto for their ship. Likewise (old) Spock's ship from the Federation we know. Which never used moving propellers on their space ships.

• How did (new) Scotty live after being superimposed on an equal volume of beer?

• Why would Sulu use a modern replica sword with folding blade? He's an enthusiast, he would want a real katana. Which he had in the old timeline. Perhaps the new timeline has pay cuts for lower ranks.

• At the beginning of the movie, a Starship was rammed into the Romulan vessel, which completely destroyed both when the antimatter went. Likewise the escaping shuttles, which were trying to leave with sublight engines. Oh wait, starship destroyed, no shuttles lost, Romulan ship suffered minor damage. Maybe they ejected the core before ramming so no one would get hurt too bad.

... these are just the few I'm thinking of on short notice.

[Athens]

Tron and Avatar are the only 2 movies I have seen in 3D where it worked.

[OAW]

I never watched the first TRON back in the 80s. Thought the special effects were lame. So I definitely had no interest in the remake. Avatar was an awesome use of 3D technology. It was done in a manner that immersed you into the world on the screen ... not just as a cheap effect to get you to pay an extra 3 bucks a ticket. That said I'll watch the new Star Trek ... probably not in the theater and definitely not in 3D. The last one was a pretty decent sci-fi/action film.

OAW

[Lateralus]

The last Trek movie that I actually thought 'worked' in accordance with the spirit of TV Trek was Insurrection - but everybody hated it. Then came Nemesis, which in conjunction with Enterprise put the entire franchise in deep freeze.

I had a shit ton of problems with '09 as I walked out of the theater, but I went back to see it two more times. And the further we get from the original release date, the more I'm able to enjoy the movie if only for one thing in particular; it's brought the franchise back to a level of prominence it hasn't seen since the early 90's.

Trek staying in the freezer for another decade would have benefited neither the fans or the franchise. There's simply too much creative fiction in existence now for anybody to be able to count on a long-term resurgence of an old franchise. Trek may have very well died permanently outside of print had JJ not been tasked to crank out a blockbuster.

So shortcomings of the movie aside, I'm encouraged by the fact that Trek has always been and always will be a TV franchise. And there are now a whole new generation of young people, from school students to aspiring writers, who've been introduced to the franchise through Trek '09 and are dutifully exploring the back catalog. Given that, it's inevitable that Trek will once again branch off between movies and TV. And it's in the TV arena where I have the most faith for a return to Trek of old.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by reader50 

• Why did they dig a hole before dropping a quantum black hole? It would pass through crust like vacuum and would assume an elliptical orbit within Vulcan. Also, it would take years (if not centuries) for a quantum black hole in the few-tons range to grow big enough to finish off the planet.

I think that is the purpose of digging it deep, lots of material for it to suck up grow fast and to destabilise the plant to collapse on itself.

• Why did the engine room turn into a brewery? Star ships are driven by plasma technology because they need the higher power density. That's what EPS conduits conduct. A large-diameter cooling pipe with beer (water) inside and inefficient doglegs could not conduct excess heat adequately. Not when the engine uses antimatter reactions.

Bigger budget, bigger engine room. You forget the starships also have fusion reactors as well as Antimatter reactors. Ship design was radically altered due to the new technologies scanned by the kelvin causing a divergence in design.

• Why did (old) Spock sit ineffectively in the Vulcan system for years without escaping or signalling anyone?

He was not in the Vulcan system for years without escaping, he got there very recently. It was the Romulans what had been there for years.

• Why didn't anyone suggest fixing the timeline after losing a founding world of the Federation?

With what? The Vulcan ship was gone and it was there time line. Only Spoke is from the original time line.

• How did the Romulan ship survive even temporarily while superimposed on a smallish black hole?

NO idea on this one. I suspect the shields protected it but its never explained.

• If the Romulans were from the old timeline, why didn't they look like old-timeline Romulans?

They did, just had tattos, they where miners not regular citizens or military. Why do punk rock people look so different, they are still humans.

• Ditto for their ship. Likewise (old) Spock's ship from the Federation we know. Which never used moving propellers on their space ships.

Was the most modern and fastest ship built by the Vulcan Science academe. Was not a star fleet vessel. And Vulcan's have had some odd looking designed ships in the TV series.

• How did (new) Scotty live after being superimposed on an equal volume of beer?

You mean what he displaced?

• Why would Sulu use a modern replica sword with folding blade? He's an enthusiast, he would want a real katana. Which he had in the old timeline. Perhaps the new timeline has pay cuts for lower ranks.

Ya that was stupid, I think that was the stupidest part in the entire movie.

• At the beginning of the movie, a Starship was rammed into the Romulan vessel, which completely destroyed both when the antimatter went. Likewise the escaping shuttles, which were trying to leave with sublight engines. Oh wait, starship destroyed, no shuttles lost, Romulan ship suffered minor damage. Maybe they ejected the core before ramming so no one would get hurt too bad.

We never saw the Romulan vessel being completely destroyed. We just see a series of explosions from the front of it. Seriously damaged it makes sense the shuttles got away.
[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I never watched the first TRON back in the 80s. Thought the special effects were lame. So I definitely had no interest in the remake. Avatar was an awesome use of 3D technology. It was done in a manner that immersed you into the world on the screen ... not just as a cheap effect to get you to pay an extra 3 bucks a ticket. That said I'll watch the new Star Trek ... probably not in the theater and definitely not in 3D. The last one was a pretty decent sci-fi/action film.

OAW

I liked the original Tron move and I loved the sequel. The new Tron movie was not a remake, it left off from the original. The special effects went hand in hand with the concept of the story.

[Athens]

I think the biggest thing about Star Trek 2009 is the transition state like Star Trek Generations. It was a launching pad for something. Honestly I think what they did work to create a new time line with new stories. It preserves the Star Trek world we already know.

[OAW]

Another movie many consider to be a sci-fi "classic" that I thought was totally LAME. One of the few movies I've ever rated 1 star.

The Fifth Element - Netflix

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

• How did (new) Scotty live after being superimposed on an equal volume of beer?

You mean what he displaced?

That's a good point... how do they ever survive being superimposed on an equal volume of air? It reminds me of that TNG episode when Geordi and ensign Ro(?) got transported into being ghosts and could walk through walls, but mysteriously could still interact with floors and air (and whatever was moving the ship through space somehow moved them along with it at the same pace)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Yeah I had to watch 5th element about 3 times before I started to like it more than I hated it. Maybe I should give the Matrix a second chance.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's a good point... how do they ever survive being superimposed on an equal volume of air? It reminds me of that TNG episode when Geordi and ensign Ro(?) got transported into being ghosts and could walk through walls, but mysteriously could still interact with floors and air (and whatever was moving the ship through space somehow moved them along with it at the same pace)

Yup, they could walk through walls but not floors. Horrific.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Bigger budget, bigger engine room.

No... it was actually filmed in an Anheuser-Busch brewery.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yup, they could walk through walls but not floors. Horrific.

I will say though, on TV all that inexplicable pseudoscience was used to set up (pseudo)philosophical questions about existence (like... what if we were invisible, what does it mean to be human, or what if the greek god Apollo captured space ships from the sky with a giant glowing green hand so he could play with them like toys (that happened, right?)), while the movie uses them only to make big explosions and give a chance to wink at the audience. I do see the difference. But (nearly) all the movies were like that, they went with action or intrigue instead of "wouldn't it be weird if" like the TV shows mostly did. I can't really fault them for that, because what makes a good TV ep would make a sucky movie.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

When a movie is designed to be 3D, that only means they're sacrificing plot and dialogue for cheap gags and unnecessary (and often laughable) movements towards the camera, often breaking the 4th wall simply to achieve a visual effect.

Given that the plot is most likely going to have bigger holes than the grand canyon, taking away from it to give the 3D treatment is unimaginable. Might as well have had Michael Bay do the film.

I don't agree.

I think most/all movies fall into this category right now, but filmmakers also need time to learn from this new technology and how to incorporate it tastefully and elegantly. I think the problem you have is with implementation, not the technology itself. I see no reason why 3D couldn't be done in such a way to enhance some films without being a distraction, it's all about execution.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I will say though, on TV all that inexplicable pseudoscience was used to set up (pseudo)philosophical questions about existence (like... what if we were invisible, what does it mean to be human, or what if the greek god Apollo captured space ships from the sky with a giant glowing green hand so he could play with them like toys (that happened, right?)), while the movie uses them only to make big explosions and give a chance to wink at the audience. I do see the difference. But (nearly) all the movies were like that, they went with action or intrigue instead of "wouldn't it be weird if" like the TV shows mostly did. I can't really fault them for that, because what makes a good TV ep would make a sucky movie.

Totally agree

[Athens]

Any predictions of the story line coming out and what would be desired.

I would love to see one that involved time travel with the next gen crew or something in the past like the 1900's but that's not likely since the previous movie was time travel. Both the Klingons and Rumulans have been done more then once in the movies already. The Q? I can't see them doing any conflicts like Khan because this time line has no history to lead up to a conflict. A war with the Klingons is possible.

Either way the next movie should be the start of a 5 years deep space mission. I guess we will have to wait to see what the story will be.

[Athens]

Feel like picking at the actors.

Zoe Saldana / Nyota Uhura (Good match, I don't think they could have found any one better for the role)
Anton Yelchin / Pavel Chekov (Works, but I think they could have done a better job at finding some one else for Chekov
Chris Pine / James T. Kirk (Was never happy with Chris Pine for Kirk. Worked only on the most minimal levels.
Simon Pegg / Scotty (Good match for scotty. I think they got this one right)
Zachary Quinto / Spock (Perfect Match for spock, I don't think any one else could have played this role any better)
Karl Urban / Bones (Perfect Match for Bones, I don't think any one else could have played this role any better)
John Cho / Hikaru Sulu (Horrible match HORRIBLE) Kill the character off in the next movie.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I would love to see one that involved time travel with the next gen crew or something in the past like the 1900's but that's not likely since the previous movie was time travel.

Please don't ever write a movie.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

Please don't ever write.

Edited for brevity. and accuracy.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I was pretty happy with the 2009 movie. I was expecting the worst and came out pleasantly surprised. And this is true for a few friends that originally held off on seeing it and eventually did. Im curious about the plot holes ole? What did you find missing?

• An altruistic explorer carrying the most dangerous material in the universe gives it to a terrorist instead of destroying the sample.
• If you're creating a black hole big enough to destroy an entire planet, you don't need to drill into the planet. Anywhere in the general vicinity of the solar system is good enough. Furthermore, why bother with a single planet? Just destroy the star.
• There is not enough energy in any star for a supernova to pose any threat what-so-ever to the whole of the galaxy.
• Why is the least experienced cadet given command of a starship? That doesn't make any sense, and certainly violates the chain of command.
• Nero just finished destroying half the Starfleet, who gives a about any codes. Just blow the god damn planet up.
• Apparently Earth and Vulcan are mere minutes away at warp (?!), but the ice planet that Kirk, Spock, and Scotty were on that can see Vulcan is too far to warn them.

And that's just off the top of my head.

[Eug]

The 2009 ST plot basically made no sense at all. But it worked on other levels. I even liked the intentional lens flares.

I liked the folding sword. I want one.

I disliked all of the TNG movies.

I also didn't think most of the original series movies were all that great either. KHAAAAAAAANNN! is the best so far though.

Avatar in 3D gave me a serious headache. The flickering was quite noticeable in some scenes. I felt like I was watching it on a CRT monitor at low Hz.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I hope the new movie is a Firefly crossover. Two rival gangs of space cowboys with a showdown at the OK corral. Cameo walk-on by Harrison Ford.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I really don't like 3D movies.

It's all been downhill since they introduced sound IMO. Colour was the nail in the coffin.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

When a movie is designed to be 3D, that only means they're sacrificing plot and dialogue for cheap gags and unnecessary (and often laughable) movements towards the camera, often breaking the 4th wall simply to achieve a visual effect.

Like they haven't been throwing in gratuitous "Indiana Jones" cliff-hanger scenes to cater to video game tie-ins since 1985.

Gotta say, I haven't noticed many "cheap 3D gags". In 1977 Star Wars opened with the battlecruiser coming in from overhead. If that was released today would we have a bunch of 3D-haters scoffing?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I even liked the intentional lens flares.

[Eug]

Well, in truth, I just didn't hate it, and over time began to appreciate the style difference vs conventional cinematography.

BTW, he did the same thing in Fringe. It was quite noticeable in one episode which had Nimoy in it.

----

The problem with 3D is that it a real step backwards in enjoyability for some people. You have to wear stupid glasses that don't fit properly, and have to deal with inappropriate frame rates, causing flickering to be noticeable for some people. And even if it's not noticeable, it still causes headaches for lots of people.

And yes, for some movies there is that gimmicky aspect to it. It reminds me of stereo from the 60s where they intentionally completely separate various instruments to different channels or intentionally have people move from one side to the other to magnify that stereo effect. Most of the time it just comes off as being cheesy.

If I had to choose (and sometimes one does have to choose for budgetary reasons), I'd MUCH prefer a movie shot in IMAX as compared to one in 3D. The increase in quality is enormous, without the headache induction. Christopher Nolan is on the right path here. I hope he's not forced to shoot in 3D just because.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I would love to see one that involved time travel

Time travel? In a Star Trek plot? That would never happen.

[reader50]

SF movies that assume intelligence from the audience are still made, and are profitable. It doesn't have to be plot-free action to succeed.

Inception
Moon
Contact
Dark City
Artificial Intelligence
Source Code

Regarding 3D, Cameron wanted to film Avatar at 48 fps to compensate, but was shot down. About the only thing the studio didn't accommodate him on. Avatar 2 and 3 will be shot at 48 fps.

[Athens]

Like to add Gattaca to that list

Another style of JJ's is to film with film. He does not like digital filming. And I think that style showed well in the 2009 movie.

On the time travel part, some of the best episodes in the TV series and the movies involved time Travel. Star Trek 4 was great. The episode where Picard meet Mark Twain and the old series when they ended up in the 30's looking for Dr.

[OAW]

All the films Reader50 listed above were great (though I never saw Dark City so I can't speak to that one). Gattaca was really good as well. A couple of good foreign Sci-Fi films ....

Sleep Dealer

Chrysalis

OAW

[SockRolid]

If the villain is Khan, I'll throw up a little. Not because he isn't a great villain, but because it's already been done extremely well. No need to remake ST:TWOK.

And if the villain is Q I'll projectile vomit. All that intellect, omniscience, immortality, and what does he do? He messes around with Picard. Like he doesn't have anything better to do. Depressing. Love DeLancie as Q, but can't stand the Q character.

OK, so who could the villain be?

Human? Nope. Boring, predictable. (Unless it's Harry Mudd, but does JJ want to go there?)

Romulan? Negative. Been done already.

Andorian? Naah. Shran was the best thing about "Enterprise" but not compelling enough for a film.

Vulcan? Umm, no.

Some all-new race? Nyet. The timeline hasn't changed *that* much.

Klingons? Bingo. Everybody loves Klingons. They were cut from the 2009 film, they get the call.

Star Trek trivia: the Klingons were named after Lieutenant Wilbur Clingan, an LAPD officer at the time that Gene Roddenberry was in the LAPD. Lt. Clingan must have been quite the tough cop.

[ghporter]

I enjoyed Abrams' Star Trek, in spite of being a fan since TOS was actually on the air. It was fun, it was certainly not serious, and it actually addressed some things I thought were less than optimal in Gene's original universe (like why are phasers continuous beam weapons? Actual science shows that energy weapons like lasers are much more effective in a pulsed mode of operation...). And I'll certainly go see the new one. Are these films "real Star Trek?" I dunno. Considering the amount of fan fiction and licensed writing in the original ST universe, I don't see how Abrams' stuff could be worse.

[SSharon]

I'm not that picky about plot holes as long as I don't notice them during the movie. I watched TNG growing up and watched Enterprise a few years ago so I have some background, but apparently not enough to catch all the details mentioned in this thread. I liked ST 2009 for all the good things about it.

The one thing that was slightly annoying was the lens flare. I was on the lookout for it though after being warned about it here. It still wasn't bad enough to ruin the movie for me. I will definitely see the 2013 movie (but not in 3D).

[Eug]

In case you hadn't already read it:

J.J. Abrams talks about Star Trek Lens Flares

The flares weren't just happening from on-camera light sources, they were happening off camera, and that was really the key to it. I want [to create] the sense that, just off camera, something spectacular is happening. There was always a sense of something, and also there is a really cool organic layer thats a quality of it. They were all done live, they weren't added later. There are something about those flares, especially in a movie that can potentially be very sterile and CG and overly controlled. There is something incredibly unpredictable and gorgeous about them. It is a really fun thing. Our DP would be off camera with this incredibly powerful flashlight aiming it at the lens. It became an art because different lenses required angles, and different proximity to the lens. Sometimes, when we were outside we'd use mirrors. Certain sizes were too big... literally, it was ridiculous. It was like another actor in the scene....

We had two cameras, so sometimes we had two different spotlight operators. When there was atmosphere in the room, you had to be really careful because you could see the beams. So it was this ridiculous, added level of pain in the ass, but I love... [looking at] the final cut, [the flares] to me, were a fun additional touch that I think, while overdone, in some places, it feels like the future is that bright.

[imitchellg5]

I've been watching through LOST again slowly, and I notice in the last two seasons, there are a lot more Star Trek-style lens flares. I guess he experimented around on both of them at around the same time.

[Eug]

And in Fringe as I mentioned earlier.

One of the things I always disliked about TNG is that the filming always felt so perfectly sterile.

[Athens]

Same for Enterprise, it was to sterile and to clean cut for what was supposed to be rough, new and unpolished.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Same for Enterprise, it was to sterile and to clean cut for what was supposed to be rough, new and unpolished.

In real life, they try to keep space equipment pretty sterile, literally.

[Athens]

I want to try a space toilet

The manual is only 300 pages on how to use it heh

[SpaceMonkey]

If only we can achieve Star Trek's toilet-free society.

[The Final Dakar]

I always imagined that's where the door in Picard's Ready Room and Sisko's Office lead to.

Those were the only toilets on the ship and station, though.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yup, they could walk through walls but not floors. Horrific.

[Nerd Mode]Floors have gravity plating that prevented them from going through. [/Nerd Mode]

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

If only we can achieve Star Trek's toilet-free society.

On the schematics of the Enterprise-D in the engine room, there are, in fact, TWO bathrooms. It was an ongoing joke with the art/prop department.

Voyager covered the issue at one point when they lost power. Supposedly there're bathrooms on every floor.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

On the schematics of the Enterprise-D in the engine room, there are, in fact, TWO bathrooms. It was an ongoing joke with the art/prop department.

Voyager covered the issue at one point when they lost power. Supposedly there're bathrooms on every floor.

Yeah, I know it's unrealistic to expect them to make a point of showing the bathrooms on camera. The silliest part about it to me, though, was that because of all the shots we got (especially in TNG) of the washrooms in individual crew cabins, it's clear that none of the officers had a toilet in the cabin. That's not necessarily strange in a modern context, but is a little weird given all of the Enterprise's other amenities.