Soooo it's going to follow the original story line but in a new way? Not sure if if rebooting old movies told for the new generation is going to work out for them. I rather see a new movie with a new storyline but you can't please everyone.
I'm reminded somewhat of the remake of Total Recall where they change a lot of details but leave the core story intact. It can be done well, and the snippets provided in this trailer suggest to me that they're going to do a good job of it. They succeeded in getting Bill Murray to make an appearance, and he's not exactly desperate for money or work.
I think the new Star Trek movies were rebooted in a way that made them very interesting. The story is basically the same but the timeline/alternate universe pitch gave them a bit of credibility. The new Star Wars on the other hand did not keep my interest and they blending of the new and old characters seemed a bit forced (pardon the pun). I still haven't seen the latest Mad Max movie because Mad Max is not in it. They could have re-branded the Title with the Road Warrior label and made it a new generation type movie and I would have been inclined to rush out and see it.
I said interesting not great or even good. Just interesting. Like if you watch a piece of fruit mold, sure its disgusting but it is also interesting. :D
i liked the new star trek movies. But... like... not as star trek movies? if that makes sense. If you take the franchise out they are still wonderfully fun action flicks with Karl Urban (mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm) and Simon Pegg (mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm)
Sure, if you pretend they aren't actually related to Star Trek in any way then they're...still riddled with holes, inconsistencies and bad plot devices that make no logical sense. Ensign Chekov, who has finished the academy, gets outranked by pretty much every single cadet brought onto the Enterprise?
Then Abrams goes and shows he can do a faithful reproduction of a genre with Star Wars without trying to "fix it" and I just want to reach through my screen to strangle him.
I've enjoyed many a action romp full of plot holes. They just never get picked apart because they don't try to attach themselves to any long standing fanbase. Like pretty much any Jason Statham film ever after Americans discovered him.
The problem is that Star Trek movies were always intellectual Scifi first and action maybe.. third or fourth in the list of priorities and these new ones are just going "hey lookee here i'm star trek!!!" without acknowledging that at it's core and for a very long time Star Trek was a look at humanity and raised all the philosophical questions of it's time. People seem to think what the younger fans want is explosions when really it would benefit them and us greatly to stay true to the deep core.
So one one hand, they are horrendous and awful star trek films. There's no way that Kirk et all came from that mob of unruly hormonal children; it's impossible to believe. On the other.. it's a great set of films for Netflix and Chill - nothing challenging, good zippy dialogue in places, explosions and you don't have to watch it for the plot cause really it's not hard to grasp.
Also Mr Pegg's Scottish wife really paid off and his accent was spot on which is brilliant for me as a Scottish person after years of really awful attempts from actors and our own people foregoing theirs for BBC English.
Plot holes that you can stick your leg through and wear as well worn jeans are great for when you need background noise :D
Then you can always go watch a really good, perfectly crafted film like Scott Pilgrim.
But But R2-D2 was in the movies as well! How could you not like that! I think he had more screen time in "Into Darkness" then he had in the new star wars movie.
The problem is that Star Trek movies were always intellectual Scifi first and action maybe.. third or fourth in the list of priorities and these new ones are just going "hey lookee here i'm star trek!!!" without acknowledging that at it's core and for a very long time Star Trek was a look at humanity and raised all the philosophical questions of it's time. People seem to think what the younger fans want is explosions when really it would benefit them and us greatly to stay true to the deep core.
This is why I really, really hate Abrams and wish I could curse him with the fleas of a thousand camels for trying to "fix" the genre. With friends like him we don't need enemies.
Then you can always go watch a really good, perfectly crafted film like Scott Pilgrim.
you didn't like Scott Pilgrim? Edgar Wright is probably one of my top 5 directors. his framing is flawless. It panel perfect form in parts. The music is excellent and everytime i watch it there's something new to look at.
Ok. But I do expect a full conversation on how CLOVERFIELD was the BEST MOVIE EVA' ! I cant wait for the sequel! Spoiler alert Godzilla will be in it again. Just like the original!!!!
I like to think of it in the terms of the original movie where Bill Murray talks about "franchising!" making them rich. It'll never be a reboot to me, i'll just rewrite the backstory in my head to fit
That would be an interesting concept. "Corporate mogul Dr. Peter Venkman holds on to the rights and branding of the Ghost Busters franchise for years in hopes to make a quick buck. He has invested in cheap Home and Personal use devices which he sells out of China to unsuspecting customers. But when the ectoplasmic shit hits the fan he has to rely on a new team of Ghost Busters to save his name and Brand!" aaaaandddd scene.
exactly or there's like Ghostbusters all over the world like friggan mcDonalds or something that operate their city's paranormal shit and they just buy into the brand and success of the original team. After 30 years the guys will be 60-70 years old so obviously they'd have trained up a new squad and Venkman being Venkman he absolutely chose an all woman team xD
there's a lot of fudging in there but I had this in my head the moment they announced the film so that's how i was hoping it would swing.
Soooo it's going to follow the original story line but in a new way? Not sure if if rebooting old movies told for the new generation is going to work out for them. I rather see a new movie with a new storyline but you can't please everyone.
I'm reminded somewhat of the remake of Total Recall where they change a lot of details but leave the core story intact. It can be done well, and the snippets provided in this trailer suggest to me that they're going to do a good job of it. They succeeded in getting Bill Murray to make an appearance, and he's not exactly desperate for money or work.
I think the new Star Trek movies were rebooted in a way that made them very interesting. The story is basically the same but the timeline/alternate universe pitch gave them a bit of credibility. The new Star Wars on the other hand did not keep my interest and they blending of the new and old characters seemed a bit forced (pardon the pun). I still haven't seen the latest Mad Max movie because Mad Max is not in it. They could have re-branded the Title with the Road Warrior label and made it a new generation type movie and I would have been inclined to rush out and see it.
....
You are dead to me.
I said interesting not great or even good. Just interesting. Like if you watch a piece of fruit mold, sure its disgusting but it is also interesting. :D
kinda like watching those Russian dashcam compilations!
i liked the new star trek movies. But... like... not as star trek movies? if that makes sense. If you take the franchise out they are still wonderfully fun action flicks with Karl Urban (mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm) and Simon Pegg (mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm)
Sure, if you pretend they aren't actually related to Star Trek in any way then they're...still riddled with holes, inconsistencies and bad plot devices that make no logical sense. Ensign Chekov, who has finished the academy, gets outranked by pretty much every single cadet brought onto the Enterprise?
Then Abrams goes and shows he can do a faithful reproduction of a genre with Star Wars without trying to "fix it" and I just want to reach through my screen to strangle him.
don't care: Karl Urban
I've enjoyed many a action romp full of plot holes. They just never get picked apart because they don't try to attach themselves to any long standing fanbase. Like pretty much any Jason Statham film ever after Americans discovered him.
The problem is that Star Trek movies were always intellectual Scifi first and action maybe.. third or fourth in the list of priorities and these new ones are just going "hey lookee here i'm star trek!!!" without acknowledging that at it's core and for a very long time Star Trek was a look at humanity and raised all the philosophical questions of it's time. People seem to think what the younger fans want is explosions when really it would benefit them and us greatly to stay true to the deep core.
So one one hand, they are horrendous and awful star trek films. There's no way that Kirk et all came from that mob of unruly hormonal children; it's impossible to believe. On the other.. it's a great set of films for Netflix and Chill - nothing challenging, good zippy dialogue in places, explosions and you don't have to watch it for the plot cause really it's not hard to grasp.
Also Mr Pegg's Scottish wife really paid off and his accent was spot on which is brilliant for me as a Scottish person after years of really awful attempts from actors and our own people foregoing theirs for BBC English.
Plot holes that you can stick your leg through and wear as well worn jeans are great for when you need background noise :D
Then you can always go watch a really good, perfectly crafted film like Scott Pilgrim.
But But R2-D2 was in the movies as well! How could you not like that! I think he had more screen time in "Into Darkness" then he had in the new star wars movie.
This is why I really, really hate Abrams and wish I could curse him with the fleas of a thousand camels for trying to "fix" the genre. With friends like him we don't need enemies.
Aaaaand you lost me.
...
You need to not talk to me for at least a day. I might be able to forgive your heresy after a good night's sleep. I might not, we'll see.
you didn't like Scott Pilgrim? Edgar Wright is probably one of my top 5 directors. his framing is flawless. It panel perfect form in parts. The music is excellent and everytime i watch it there's something new to look at.
I'm very happy for you. :)
Ok. But I do expect a full conversation on how CLOVERFIELD was the BEST MOVIE EVA' ! I cant wait for the sequel! Spoiler alert Godzilla will be in it again. Just like the original!!!!
I like to think of it in the terms of the original movie where Bill Murray talks about "franchising!" making them rich. It'll never be a reboot to me, i'll just rewrite the backstory in my head to fit
That would be an interesting concept. "Corporate mogul Dr. Peter Venkman holds on to the rights and branding of the Ghost Busters franchise for years in hopes to make a quick buck. He has invested in cheap Home and Personal use devices which he sells out of China to unsuspecting customers. But when the ectoplasmic shit hits the fan he has to rely on a new team of Ghost Busters to save his name and Brand!" aaaaandddd scene.
exactly or there's like Ghostbusters all over the world like friggan mcDonalds or something that operate their city's paranormal shit and they just buy into the brand and success of the original team. After 30 years the guys will be 60-70 years old so obviously they'd have trained up a new squad and Venkman being Venkman he absolutely chose an all woman team xD
there's a lot of fudging in there but I had this in my head the moment they announced the film so that's how i was hoping it would swing.
Ok. I think we should call Bill and get this on his radar. I bet he would go for it.
we need writers and director who can be true to the original content without trading on it too heavily. people who genuinely care.
and Aubrey Plaza needs to be in it.