The new Star Trek movie

New rumor is i t that " Eric Banna"is set to playing in "The Startreck Movie.
This sounds good too me. Can't wait for this! thumbsup:

 

Methinks this belongs in Visual Arts...

 

Let me have your keys Larry.

 

And may I add the release date has been set back from this Christmas to May of 99. They are dropping it in the middle of a lot of other summer blockbuster films. Me thinks this could REALLY be the end if they do that.

 

May of 99? Is this another time travel movie?

 

With J.J. Abrams involved it should be good. Whenever it comes out I'll be in line to see it....

 

I dunno, I like it. Shows confidence and a desire to make Trek big again, not be satisfied with it being a small cash-crop for a niche audience.

I thought the premise of the movie was dumb at first, and even doing another one so quickly after the bad streak Trek has been having, but the buzz around this one is all quite positive. It has potential.

 

Hey Lay off... I am still getting over having Starbucks closed for 4 hours the other day. lol


At first it took me a bit to understand what you ment. As I said..lack of cafine lol

 

Just some light hearted chop busting. No harm meant.

I'm looking forward to this new movie. We have been without new Trek for quite a while now. I have always wished they would do a Deep Space 9 movie. After The Original Series, Deep Space 9 is my favorite Trek series.

 

Ambien and a laptop, oops.

 

That's not a rumour, that's a fact. Mr Bana was on Leno the other night and confirmed that his newly shaved head is for his role in the new Trek movie (as a Romulan called "Nero").

Also, Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) is playing Scotty. The only member of the original cast who is confirmed is Leonard Nimoy who will be playing an elderly Spock. Zachary Qunnto will be playing the young Spock.

The movie has been moved to May 2009, because it will be a blockbuster with a confirmed budget of $150,000,000. That's more than twice the budget of any previous Trek film, and it's more than the domestic gross of any previous Trek film, so clearly there will be considerable hype surrounding this release.

 

I don't think it will fly (pun intended). I worked a few days on this one. My god they were taking it too seriously. I wanted to grab a few people by the shoulders and shak em and say "dude, it Star Trek!" You'd think they were working on a cure for cancer.

 

Have they cast young Kirk yet?

 

Typing Under The Influence? Happens to the best of us...

 

yes
http://imdb.com/name/nm1517976/

 

That's particularly interesting in light of the last Trek movie, which suffered from being made by people who clearly didn't even know what Star Trek was.

 

I agree with your opinion about the previous Star Trek movie. But how does that make what I said particularly interesting?

 

Actually, the word should be "fascinating".....

 

I just don't know what else they can do with Star Trek at this point, after 10 movies and how many hundreds of TV episodes. Is a new cast (playing old characters) really going to freshen up the concept all that much? I'm sure Abrams can put together an entertaining movie but it seems a bit pointless to me -- was anyone but the hardest of hardcore fans really missing Star Trek yet?

 

Bingo... They seem a little over-eager to milk a few dollars out of a dead franchise. And based on what did they pick Abrams? His smashing success with the last Mission: Impossible movie.

 

To boldly go where everybody and their grandmother has gone before.

 

Well if the story is interesting and the acting is good, I think that is all that matters. We've all seen plenty of movies that came out at the "right" time, inlcuded the most popular actors of the day, etc etc and totally stunk.

And as far as the issue of enthusiasm being shown by the people making this movie.....um.....shouldn't people making a movie be excited about doing so? Particularly a movie that is part of something (don't want to use the term "franchise" here because it sounds too clinical) that many people place a lot of value in i.e. Star Trek is not just some casual diversion for an hour or two but something that has positively influenced their lives in addition to being entertained by it. Gene Roddenberry had a definite vision when writing his Trek stories & IMO there's nothing wrong with an optimistic vision of the future. And no I don't own any stick-on pointed ears.

 

indeed people should be enthusiastic about movie making. Who said it was a bad thing? I would have been encouraged had I seen any enthusiasm when I was there.

 

So, the cast and crew were just going through the motions?

The problem the last two Trek films had was that the stories were overly contrived and poorly executed. Insurrection in particular seemed like a third rate version of a Next Generation TV episode. In essence, an alien race we've never heard of are posing a threat to another unknown alien race we don't give a damn about, but good ol' Jean Luc Picard wants to make a difference. Yawn.

Nemesis suffered in part from being directed by a non-Trek director, Stuart Baird, who seemed to not understand the 'tone' of Star Trek. Nemesis was also saddled by a silly story about a clone of Picard, and a lot of guff about a 'slave race' the Romulans have managed to hide from us all these years. Again, who cares?

The only good 'Next Generation' film, First Contact involved a deadly threat to both the crew and Earth plus a trip back to mid-21st century Earth, all mixed up with nice dollops of action, drama and humour. With the benefit of hindsight that certainly sounds like a good combination. Seems like it should be easy to do a Trek film, but apparently history has shown that it's easier to screw one up.

What I fear is that Abrams can go wrong in so many ways: getting the 'tone' wrong, not making us care about the characters, relying on an overly contrived storyline about stuff that is irrelevant, and relying too much on dumb action sequences and ill-conceived jokes.