Fast and Furious director to take reins of Star Trek 3

[ctbaars]

I liked the two movies. I guess I'm not hip/

 

[zinfamous]

And who gives a shit about Trekies. If the films are okay on their own, they are okay. If you can't live in a world where the source material differs from the mass market items, you're a fucking idiot. I have no problem with Starship Troopers (movie) being nothing like the book in tone or message. I love both and can appreciate both.

It's not so much that, as the Trek stuff offered something very different from the typical sci Fi fare--the plots tended to be a bit more complex, or at least interesting, and action was always second fiddle.

If you're making yet another sci fi action flick, why bother calling it Star Trek? It really does no service to the franchise to just purchase the name and slap it on yet another generic popcorn flick, which is what happened.

 

[purbeast0]

I liked the two movies. I guess I'm not hip/

oh you are very hip, which is exactly why most of ATOT doesn't like the movies.

 

[zinfamous]

oh you are very hip, which is exactly why most of ATOT doesn't like the movies.

jesus effing christ get over it already. People don't criticize things simply because: "they are too popular and so many people like them!"

that's pedestrian as fuck.

people criticize things because they are terrible.

Star Trek or every Michael Bay movie ever or Fast and Furious 12: Nutgrabbers or TMNT whatthefuckever could have made $5 collectively and we would still be here saying that they sucked, because they do.

Quality is irrespective of success and shit taste. That has always been the case.

It's not as if I think less of those that like this crap....well, mostly.

 

[purbeast0]

jesus effing christ get over it already. People don't criticize things simply because: "they are too popular and so many people like them!"

that's pedestrian as fuck.

people criticize things because they are terrible.

Star Trek or every Michael Bay movie ever or Fast and Furious 12: Nutgrabbers or TMNT whatthefuckever could have made $5 collectively and we would still be here saying that they sucked, because they do.

Quality is irrespective of success and shit taste. That has always been the case.

It's not as if I think less of those that like this crap....well, mostly.

the majority of criticizing i see on this forum are from people who have never even seen the movies at hand. the only real thread to discuss things objectionably is the long running "rate this movie" thread.

i mean just look at pretty much any new movie thread dedicated to a specific movie. it's 90% "this movie is garbage" from people who havent seen it nor plan on seeing it.

EDIT:

yeah ... the latest star trek movies must be terrible...

star trek 2
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/?ref_=nv_sr_1 - 7.9

star trek 1
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/?ref_=nv_sr_3 - 8.0

 

[ControlD]

Star Trek or every Michael Bay movie ever or Fast and Furious 12: Nutgrabbers or TMNT whatthefuckever could have made $5 collectively and we would still be here saying that they sucked, because they do.

Just for the record, I would totally go see that one. Like opening day go see it.

 

[zinfamous]

the majority of criticizing i see on this forum are from people who have never even seen the movies at hand. the only real thread to discuss things objectionably is the long running "rate this movie" thread.

i mean just look at pretty much any new movie thread dedicated to a specific movie. it's 90% "this movie is garbage" from people who havent seen it nor plan on seeing it.

At what point does one need enough evidence to judge the quality of someone's work before they say: never again?

I've seen the majority of things that Michael Bay touches--there is no evidence anywhere that he understands plot, character, or editing. Everything is covered by explosions. Yes, this does work for simple people, but the argument that everything must be seen to criticize that, specifically, is baseless.

I already know that Michael Bay is terrible. Every example: terrible. Why do I need to go beyond the 6 or 7 films of his that I've already seen?

Fool me once, shame on you; fool my twice, shame on me.

 

[zinfamous]

Just for the record, I would totally go see that one. Like opening day go see it.

 

[zinfamous]

EDIT:

yeah ... the latest star trek movies must be terrible...

star trek 2
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/?ref_=nv_sr_1 - 7.9

star trek 1
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/?ref_=nv_sr_3 - 8.0

IMDB thinks Shawshank Redemption is the greatest film of all time.

...so, mostly dumb people. (I love that film, btw...greatest ever? LMFAO!)

 

[purbeast0]

IMDB thinks Shawshank Redemption is the greatest film of all time.

...so, mostly dumb people. (I love that film, btw...greatest ever? LMFAO!)

oh ok so the rules only apply to you when they work for your point - got it!

 

[LevelSea]

I've seen them. They suck.

 

[ImpulsE69]

They were way better than Battlefield Earth and the Star Wars prequels....so...whatev's.

 

[CZroe]

Well all of the F&F movies besides part 2 have been pretty good action movies.

TPAD

 

[poofyhairguy]

If you're making yet another sci fi action flick, why bother calling it Star Trek?

To cash in on the brand of course.

With that said, when you think about it there were only two successful Star Trek movies- Khan and the one with the whales. The whale one has turned into a time capsule of the 80's, and the Trek franchise ran itself into the ground trying to recreate WOK (Undiscovered Country, Generations and Insurrection).

A little new blood was a good thing. The first movie actually was alright. I mean it sodomized the canon, but that needed to happen Trekkies locked the franchise in a box with that. It was a little too actiony, and the Kirk was a little too unsubstantial, but it was a good start. The real letdown was the second movie, the one that ruined basically everything good about Trek.

I will give the third a chance.

 

[zinfamous]

oh ok so the rules only apply to you when they work for your point - got it!

You think I'm the only person out there that doesn't know that Shawshank is a decent, if not middling Hollywood romp?

You do realize that no one takes IMDB ratings seriously, right?

Again, trying to argue popularity when I am arguing quality. I understand why things are popular--that is all that I am saying.


Look, can we just go to the Luck vs RG3 thread and point and laugh at eits some more?

 

[smackababy]

You think I'm the only person out there that doesn't know that Shawshank is a decent, if not middling Hollywood romp?

You do realize that no one takes IMDB ratings seriously, right?

Again, trying to argue popularity when I am arguing quality. I understand why things are popular--that is all that I am saying.


Look, can we just go to the Luck vs RG3 thread and point and laugh at eits some more?

Except, you're arguing quality on an unmeasurable metric "goodness of a movie". Success in terms of rating is a good metric of measuring just how quality a movie is. Enough people feel Shawshank Redemption had actors who successfully elicited the proper emotional response that fit the acceptable story.

For the purpose of the Star Trek movies (which wasn't to jerk off Trekies), the first two did their job. They introduced a futuristic universe and had entertaining action. And, enough people thought that to rate them that high.

You don't like them? Sorry for that. Simply don't watch them then.

 

[Balt]

jesus effing christ get over it already. People don't criticize things simply because: "they are too popular and so many people like them!"

that's pedestrian as fuck.

people criticize things because they are terrible.

Star Trek or every Michael Bay movie ever or Fast and Furious 12: Nutgrabbers or TMNT whatthefuckever could have made $5 collectively and we would still be here saying that they sucked, because they do.

Quality is irrespective of success and shit taste. That has always been the case.

It's not as if I think less of those that like this crap....well, mostly.

Thank you. Accusing people of trying to be 'trendy' or hip just because they say they don't like something popular is... trendy.

Sometimes people just don't like things that are popular. It happens. And it's certainly possible for it to happen with regards to something like Star Trek where the long-term fans have expectations. I'm going to guess there are more long-term fans of Star Trek on these forums than in the population at large. Thus, it's not bizarre to see that the new films are less popular here.

 

[Ichinisan]

jesus effing christ get over it already. People don't criticize things simply because: "they are too popular and so many people like them!"

that's pedestrian as fuck.

people criticize things because they are terrible.

Star Trek or every Michael Bay movie ever or Fast and Furious 12: Nutgrabbers or TMNT whatthefuckever could have made $5 collectively and we would still be here saying that they sucked, because they do.

Quality is irrespective of success and shit taste. That has always been the case.

It's not as if I think less of those that like this crap....well, mostly.

I learned a long time ago that purbeast0 has awful taste in movies.

Sorry, purbeast0. You do. You really do.

...and you always say the same thing: "Don't listen to the nay-sayers. It's great! People just like to hate."

I'm going to *try* to find out if we've ever liked any of the same films...so at least there'd be some small bit of agreement

[edit]
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes - we both agree that movie was great! Too bad the last 2 movies ended up with their titles swapped.

 

[Ichinisan]

To cash in on the brand of course.

With that said, when you think about it there were only two successful Star Trek movies- Khan and the one with the whales. The whale one has turned into a time capsule of the 80's, and the Trek franchise ran itself into the ground trying to recreate WOK (Undiscovered Country, Generations and Insurrection).

A little new blood was a good thing. The first movie actually was alright. I mean it sodomized the canon, but that needed to happen Trekkies locked the franchise in a box with that. It was a little too actiony, and the Kirk was a little too unsubstantial, but it was a good start. The real letdown was the second movie, the one that ruined basically everything good about Trek.

I will give the third a chance.

I agree almost 100% with this post.

...but I really liked Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. If I recall correctly, that's the one where Kirk gets framed for assassinating a Klingon leader during peace treaty negotiations, and they have to find the saboteur.

 

[ControlD]

I agree almost 100% with this post.

...but I really liked Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. If I recall correctly, that's the one with the one where Kirk gets framed for assassinating a Klingon leader during a peace treaty, and they have to find the saboteur.

That's actually my favorite Trek movie out of all of them. Even non Trek friends of mine like that one.

 

[Balt]

I agree almost 100% with this post.

...but I really liked Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. If I recall correctly, that's the one with the one where Kirk gets framed for assassinating a Klingon leader during peace treaty negotiations, and they have to find the saboteur.

I can see you, Kirk. Can you see me? :twisted:

 

[poofyhairguy]

I agree almost 100% with this post.

...but I really liked Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. If I recall correctly, that's the one where Kirk gets framed for assassinating a Klingon leader during peace treaty negotiations, and they have to find the saboteur.

Star Trek 6 is the best WOK copy, and my fourth favorite Trek movie after WOK, Voyage Home and First Contact. It was the most "modern" piece of old Trek we have, and really did a good job of getting a cold war analogy right at the right time.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

TPAD

Wow I had no idea what that meant and this is what the definition said..

Originated on Anandtech Off Topic where a member fed a number of sleeping pills to a skunk which subsequently was let out of its cage, went for a swim and drowned in the pool.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=TPAD

I've been here for years but I don't remember that thread at all?

 

[Ichinisan]

Wow I had no idea what that meant and this is what the definition said..



http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=TPAD

I've been here for years but I don't remember that thread at all?

I don't recall that the skunk was in a cage. I thought it was a wild skunk that kept eating a member's cat's food.

He put pills in the food and put it outside after locking his cat indoors, if I recall correctly. Skunk ate the food and the pills, then went for a swim in the wading pool and drowned.

 

[zinfamous]

I agree almost 100% with this post.

...but I really liked Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. If I recall correctly, that's the one where Kirk gets framed for assassinating a Klingon leader during peace treaty negotiations, and they have to find the saboteur.

That's actually my favorite one. I had seen them all many many years ago, and only really recalled Wrath of Khan, because it was on HBO ~5 times per day back then, I was, I dunno, 7, and always got a kick out of the worms in the ears.

I recently re-watched all of them through Netflix, and Undiscovered Country was actually damn good.