Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"Star Trek 3" To Be Helmed By "Fast & Furious" Franchise Director Justin Lin

Posted by timothy on from the just-this-guy-you-know dept.

Dave Knott writes Although J.J. Abrams directed the first two films in the popular revamped Star Trek series, his new job masterminding the Star Wars sequels had left Star Trek 3 as one of the most prestigious unfilled directing assignments in Hollywood. No longer. It is now known that Justin Lin will direct the third Star Trek film. Lin is best known for revitalizing the long-running Fast & Furious series, helming the third through sixth films in that franchise. Several top-flight directors were under consideration for Star Trek 3, but Lin was the only one actually offered the job, following the postponement of the Bourne Legacy sequel that he had previously been set to direct.

59 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. Nonstop action? Whattabore. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Roddenberry would not permit the filming of a Star Trek movie that was nonstop action.
    The ideas were more important to Gene.
    What a betrayal.

    1. Re:Nonstop action? Whattabore. by war4peace · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I somehow managed to keep enjoying both types of movies. Some are pure entertainment ("don't think, just watch", fast-and-furious style) and others are "lessons learned" (12 angry men style).

      I have a friend who's mid-20s and he hadn't seen any of the classical movies, so one evening we watched "The Party" (1968) and "Soylent Green" (1973). He was mesmerized. Laughed his ass off watching the first and literally cried while watching the second.

      Young people CAN enjoy older movies thoroughly, provided they're willing to try them out. Sadly, the movie-churning industry lost touch with this way of doing business.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    2. Re:Nonstop action? Whattabore. by flappinbooger · · Score: 2

      Roddenberry would not permit the filming of a Star Trek movie that was nonstop action.
      The ideas were more important to Gene.
      What a betrayal.

      gotta do something to keep the kids from looking at their phones.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
  2. Shift! by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, what you're saying is there's going to be lots of close-up cuts of Sulu stomping on the Enterprise's clutch and forcefully downshifting.

    But hey, less lens flare amiright?

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    1. Re:Shift! by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 2

      >But hey, less lens flare amiright?

      It seems like a reasonable tradeoff, and the first Trek reboot began with a Fast and Furious type scene of Kirk in a sports-car, so this change started happening with J.J. at the helm. I recommend watching the original series on BlueRay instead. It looks beautiful, and was brilliant for the time it was made.

    2. Re:Shift! by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

      Don't forget Sulo leaning back in his chair as he uses one hand to hit the control buttons.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    3. Re:Shift! by sconeu · · Score: 5, Funny

      Star Trek 3: Romulan Drift

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  3. sounds like relevent expertise by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Funny

    His skills in filming exciting race scenes will allow this incarnation of Star Trek to really do justice to the pod-racing scenes.

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    1. Re:sounds like relevent expertise by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

      Nemesis itself also being probably the worst Star Trek film in history. Though most of the TNG movies were stinkers, except the Borg one. I loved the TNG series, it's a shame that whatever the series had didn't translate over to the big screen very well.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    2. Re:sounds like relevent expertise by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      I have no idea what to watch.

      1) Go to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/
      2) Click "Movies"
      3) Click "Certified Fresh Movies"

      Enjoy.

    3. Re:sounds like relevent expertise by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      Nothing compares to Star Trek V for sheer, unadulterated suck. Nemesis was godawful, but V was so bad that you felt ashamed *on behalf of* everyone involved. I felt ashamed for them. I felt ashamed for their grandchildren who might one day see it. I felt ashamed for the alien species in the distant future who might happen upon the ruins of the human race and discover a copy of it buried in a pile of rubble.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  4. What a nightmare by endus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    First Abrams' complete disregard for the history and the message of every previous Star Trek in favor of everything superficial and minor that has ever been in the series, and now they bring in this guy, of all people? They should just have Vin Diesel play Kirk and put the series out of its misery.

    I actually wouldn't have minded the 2 newest Star Trek movies as mediocre sci-fi films, *if* they weren't labelled "Star Trek". The lens flare bullshit and the incompetent/inconsistent portrayal of Spock are things I could get past, but not as a Star Trek movie.

    1. Re:What a nightmare by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

      Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'

      Long time fans of the Star Trek franchise say JJ Abrams' enjoyable, engaging prequel betrays what Star Trek is all about.

      http://www.theonion.com/video/trekkies-bash-new-star-trek-film-as-fun-watchable,14333/

    2. Re:What a nightmare by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'

      Star Trek's II, III, IV, and VI weren't watchable? Amazing how they managed to combine both action, a compelling story, and respect for the Star Trek mythos into commercially successful films....

      IV even had an oddball plot about whales and was still the highest grossing film in the whole series, including the TNG movies that later came, and which totally sucked.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:What a nightmare by afidel · · Score: 3, Informative

      IV even had an oddball plot about whales and was still the highest grossing film in the whole series

      Incorrect, the first JJ Abrams film was the highest grossing, both in raw and inflation adjusted dollars for the US box office. source.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:What a nightmare by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude, you're far too wedded to the canon you've built up as something immutable.

      As a long time Trek geek ... I like the fact that they basically burned the canon and made it so they can do anything they want to.

      Because now they can focus on making (hopefully good) movies without every nerd in the world going apeshit and whining that something isn't consistent with the original series or some bit of fanboi Trek porn they read.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  5. But but.. what will we do without lens flare? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

    And even more lens flare?

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  6. Action movies are boring. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Modern action movies are incredibly boring.

    There's nothing interesting about seeing normal human characters defy death ten or twelve times per minute.

    There's nothing interesting about seeing them engage in combat or driving or some other activity at a level that even those with years and years of training and experience couldn't manage.

    When a character has practically no limitations, there is no risk. When there is no risk, there's nothing interesting happening. The result? Bored viewers, even if the on-screen activity is rapid and frantic.

    1. Re:Action movies are boring. by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Modern action movies are incredibly boring.

      There's nothing interesting about seeing normal human characters defy death ten or twelve times per minute.

      There's nothing interesting about seeing them engage in combat or driving or some other activity at a level that even those with years and years of training and experience couldn't manage.

      When a character has practically no limitations, there is no risk. When there is no risk, there's nothing interesting happening. The result? Bored viewers, even if the on-screen activity is rapid and frantic.

      I agree completely AC, but most people seem to not share our view of these mindless action movies.

    2. Re:Action movies are boring. by allquixotic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. Aside from that, "intellectual" threats to the characters (figuring something out with science and creativity; outsmarting an opponent; devising a diplomatic solution to a problem) create far more tension and build-up to the crescendo. The threat of massive loss of life could be the end result of whatever dreadful thing they're up against, but if their solution is to shoot the hell out of it, it's boring, because you KNOW there's no way the movie could proceed except for them to win. Sure, somebody you're attached to might tragically die, but even that trope is pretty old by now, even within the Star Trek film canon (Spock and Data).

      What I've been wanting -- and not receiving -- from modern incarnations of 'Trek are basically the scenes that directors like Justin Lin and JJ Abrams would cut, if they even allowed the scenes to be filmed.

      Like the drawn-out philosophical conversations between Wesley and Picard in TNG.

      Like the near-total audio silence between lines of dialogue during Spock's death scene in the Wrath of Khan.

      Like the many times that a character would *tell* a story through words rather than the viewer being *shown* the story through whizzy graphics.

      Like when the activities of the Federation personnel vaguely represent the moral code and rules of engagement that they apparently seek to uphold.

      It's not going to get better. The cognitive dissonance behind producing movies these days is stunning. If you don't meet quotas for number of CG-rendered frames and explosions per minute, they won't let you run it in theaters.

    3. Re:Action movies are boring. by ravenscar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. I'll add in: perhaps a "bad guy" that isn't so bad or a situation with no right answer. Often, neither side is completely wrong in a conflict. It all depends on the point of view one takes or the way one ranks morals (say, freedom over equality for example). One of the things I appreciated most about the Star Trek series was the willingness to present and explore morally ambiguous topics. Things such as:
      1. Should they get involved?
      2. Trading one life for another (or others).
      3. Are some values more important than others?

      I liked getting to the end of the show and wondering if the characters really made the right decision.

      It seems that's all gone now. The last times I really noticed similar themes were the BSG reboot and The Wire.

    4. Re:Action movies are boring. by flappinbooger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd like to see a story set in the Star Trek universe that isn't about Kirk/Spock and not about the Enterprise or space battles or StarFleet.

      Rather, some other interesting story that takes place in that universe with it's set of rules - replicators, holodecks, no monetary system, intellectual pursuits, what have you.

      What is illegal in that universe? What would a criminal do? Are there bad guys? What would a "good guy" do to deal with a "bad guy?" What kind of DRAMA is there? What do people DO who aren't in Starfleet? Hmmm? What's that LIKE?

      Certainly Roddenberry's universe isn't so mind numbingly BORING that there couldn't be a non StarFleet story to see the other side of the society. Right? Please?

      I think the closest I have ever seen was Ben Sisko's dad on Earth where he had his restaurant and the Founders were invading by impersonating Starfleet officials and there was martial law or something. There are other nuggets here and there on DS9, Jake Sisko being a writer, Quark's Bar, etc. The interaction between Odo and Quark were always fun but that is still just an inch away from Starfleet and it wasn't Earth. What do Humans on Earth do in the ST universe?

      Anyone know of anyone ever looking at that?

      I know "Cracked" once did a bit where they postulated that the ST universe would actually be horrible to live in. Well, is it?

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    5. Re:Action movies are boring. by allquixotic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's an entire episode of ST: Enterprise devoted to depicting the life of freighter crews on early warp ships. If I recall correctly, they're only capable of warp 1 or 2, and this is first-generation warp, so it's much slower than the "Warp 2" you might hear Picard give the order for in TNG, or even the "Warp 5" that the NX-01 Enterprise is capable of. These crews spent a lot of time in deep space doing absolutely nothing except reproducing like bunnies.

      The neat thing about the freighter crews as they were depicted in the shows, was that the crews were often families that would live and reproduce on the ship, spending their entire lives in space on a fairly small and poorly-armed vessel. They would occasionally take on new blood from outside their family unit (this helps combat the immediate idea of gene pool degeneration), but the majority of the crew would be biological relatives.

      These crews were much less idealistic than Starfleet personnel, and were very much loyal to their families above and beyond any set of ideals. No doubt they'd encounter all kinds of sticky situations in space with pirates, Klingons, and even Starfleet, and have to defend their family, defend their ship, make ends meet, and survive.

      A show like that would necessarily have to involve a lot less space combat (and fewer explosions therefore), because even a small warship like a frigate or a destroyer can *easily* overwhelm and destroy a freighter in the Star Trek universe (all time periods), as well as outrun them and probably have better-trained military crew for boarding parties as well. The freighter crew would have to get by on wit, cunning, deception, and probably a whole hell of a lot of sacrifice. Not much you can do with a small pulse cannon against a military vessel, when nobody in your family is trained in the kind of specialization that, say, Data would have, when he'd save the day every other episode with technobabble trick after technobabble trick.

      What I said above is NOT in any way a knock against TNG, just saying that you're asking for a very, VERY different side of Trek, but I think it's doable, and there's a lot of established lore in this area that could easily be drawn from to create a series.

      However, I don't think it would stick. The majority of the hardcore Trek crowd wants to see a crew on a Federation flagship, or at least a Federation-operated space station. The non-Trekkies would get bored by the lack of explosions. So it's unlikely that such a thing would make an appearance on TV or in the movies.

    6. Re:Action movies are boring. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      So Kirk didn't have to steal the Enterprise in... whatever movie that was.. he could just have replicated it?

      Kirk needed to steal a warship so he could fly into prohibited space.

      Why do criminals steal cars / boats / planes today?

      To get somewhere: No money in Gene-world, so just beam yourself or walk onto a starship going where you need to go.

      To part it out our sell it stolen: No money in Gene-world, so what good is that - No customers to fence them too, and no means for them to pay you.

      Same reason I never understood the "Gold Pressed Latinum" nonsense. Even if you couldn't replicate it, what would you buy with it? Everything is free.

    7. Re:Action movies are boring. by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      When a character has practically no limitations, there is no risk. When there is no risk, there's nothing interesting happening. The result? Bored viewers, even if the on-screen activity is rapid and frantic.

      Odd, in a thread about Star Trek.

      The major characters were always limited superheroes. In TOS, nobody could out-engineer Scotty, out-crafty Kirk, outwit or overpower Spock, and McCoy would always arrive with the cure at the last moment. In TNG, it was more of the same. Super-diplomat JLP would come out on top, and why have a Vulcan when you can have a super-Vulcan++ android, even stronger with better logic? You're never going to lose in battle, ship-to-ship or hand-to-hand with a Klingon at the ready!

      We like seeing heroic characters swoop to the rescue: You're all clear kid; now lets blow this thing and go home, anyone?

    8. Re:Action movies are boring. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

      Often, neither side is completely wrong in a conflict.

      While you are correct, there are indeed exceptions...

      One of them would be the Borg...

      Another good example is the Emperor...

      The Reapers is one more...

      And returning to reality, so was Hitler and Japan during WWII...

      Sometimes there really is evil in the world, and sometimes there really are good people, and the good people must stop the evil people, no matter what it takes...

    9. Re:Action movies are boring. by ArcherB · · Score: 2

      One of them would be the Borg...
      The Borg (sounds Swedish) didn't see themselves as evil or believe that their mission was unjust. They wanted to add other civilizations to their own, making both sides better. The Borg did not have the problems most civilizations have such as crime, starvation, jealousy, etc. Who wouldn't want that?

      Another good example is the Emperor...
      The Emperor wanted to bring order to a chaotic galaxy. Sometimes, the only way is with an iron fist.

      The Reapers is one more...
      Reapers were changed against their will. What they became was not their fault.

      Any position can change depending on the perspective. People... or cyborgs... don't see themselves as evil They are doing what they think is best, twisted as it may be.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    10. Re:Action movies are boring. by flappinbooger · · Score: 2

      Or how about life on Earth. One thing I've never got form watch Star Trek is what kind of government or socioeconomic structure, or demographic and ethnographic makeup, does Earth have. Does it have a (semi-)independent government based somewhere (Rome? Geneva? Johannesburg?) or is it practically communistic in nature? What kind of ideologies, or even religious beliefs and faiths, are there, if any (even if underground)?

      exactly. All they ever go on about is starfleet headquarters.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    11. Re:Action movies are boring. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

      All evil people have some claim to wanting to do good, that doesn't make it so.

      The Emperor is a good example, his claim to wanting to bring order to a chaotic galaxy is just nonsense, it is about power and control, nothing more or less.

      Pretty words to cover up evil.

  7. Waste of Time by Java+Commando · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Great. That's all this once proud franchise needs is yet more pointless explosions and simpleton dialogue. Star Trek has been dumbed down so much, by their own admission, that I pretty much don't even bother watching the reboots. All the impressive CGI in the universe won't conceal the fact that these movies are brainless, patronizing wastes of time.

    Gene Roddenberry would be appalled by what's become of his creation. And everyone who grasps what Star Trek originally was intended to be knows it.

    1. Re:Waste of Time by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      I watched the reboots, but I honestly don't remember anything about them, except there was some time travel stuff and that guy from Shaun Of The Dead. And I think there was lens flare. But I may be imaginging that.

      Everything else was just Generic Hollywood Movie Of The Weekend.

    2. Re:Waste of Time by afidel · · Score: 2

      Space Opera/Cowboys in Space, the idea that TOS was some masterwork of American literature is laughable, which is why I love the reboots so much =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Waste of Time by Mariner28 · · Score: 2

      TOS was born in the time of Vietnam, the Cold War, and the Civil Rights era of the 1960's. Roddenberry's vision was what mankind (after a devastating WWIII) could achieve after it had had overcome racism, class warfare and sexism. Well, maybe TOS didn't quite get there with sexism, with Kirk having a green girlfriend in every port - but you know what I mean ;-)

      --
      "A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
    4. Re:Waste of Time by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      No, that's just how Gene sold it to the network: "Wagon Train to the Stars", to quote his concept document. But Gene intended that to be a trojan horse--he wanted to take the chance to also touch on larger issues. "A masterwork of American Literature"? No, not really, although they did have master science-fiction writers do some of their scripts (Theodore Sturgeon on "Amok Time" and "Shore Leave", Harlan Ellison on "The City on the Edge of Forever", Robert Bloch on "What Are Little Girls Made Of?", "Catspaw", and "Wolf in the Fold", Norman Spinrad on "The Doomsday Machine") But it also used be more than just non-stop action, too. Not anymore.

    5. Re:Waste of Time by cmdahler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It was a broad view of what humanity could accomplish once their petty differences of race were resolved and the race was looking forward through exploration. The series episodes nearly always involved a serious moral dilemma that the crew would solve through a combination of pragmatism and idealism. The action and comedy of the episodes were merely wrappers around the real message Roddenberry wanted to convey: that if we humans would only just stop fighting each other over trivial nonsense, we could make tremendous progress in exploring the universe around us, revel in the wonder of finding new things we couldn't possibly imagine at the moment, and discover that there are a lot bigger and more interesting things out there that worrying about whose skin happened to be a slightly different color.

      The JJ Abrams movies especially simply ignored this basic concept and just went with the action aspect with a little extremely surface glossy history thrown in to make it look just a tiny little bit less like a completely 2 dimensional sci-fi flick of no substance worthy of consideration. As simple standalone sci-fi adventure movies with no tradition or history behind them, they were fairly decent - glossy, amusing, decent action, a reasonable stab at making a futuristic movie look "real" (except for that totally moronic throttle on Sulu's panel), fairly well-done and reasonably well-acted - in short, worth killing two hours of your time for - but they had virtually nothing to do with the original concept of Roddenberry's series beyond the names of the characters.

  8. Re:more NOS and less lense flare by RDW · · Score: 2

    WHY?

    KHAAAAAAN!!

  9. Artistic license by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Funny

    I like what J.J Abrams and Zack Snyder (who directed "Man of Steel") have done to the franchises. They start with the established plotlines and take the stories in new directions. It's an artistic license that gives us fresh, new interpretations of the characters such as superman killing someone (General Zod) or Spock having an emotional outburst (over Kirk's death).

    I anxiously await the Michael Bay version of "Hamlet" or the Justin Lin version of "Macbeth". This site has a good overview of directors taking artistic license, including an unannounced (but upcoming) superman movie.

    For reference, here's Kevin Smith talking about how movies get made.

    1. Re:Artistic license by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      I anxiously await the Michael Bay version of "Hamlet" or the Justin Lin version of "Macbeth".

      I would actually pay to see those.

      Just not very much.

  10. As much as I love sci-fi and watching ST/SW by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    at this point I'd rather see new movie ideas that get the next generation of sci-fi fans going. Sick of 20 year remakes or reboots or what ever the fuck they call them next. Hell gimme some more Matrix or Firefly rather than Star Trek or Star Wars.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  11. It's an interesting choice - by the_skywise · · Score: 2

    As I was discussing with enraged friends last night:
    Obviously the plot won't be one of exploration or discovery or anything resembling hard sci-fi but then this is "AbramsTrek" and Lin's a good match for this.

    Lin can do good action sequences and FF's storyline (simple as it is) has always impressed me with how much heart he could squeeze out of those characters. I could easily see him doing a good rendition of Arena or Errand of Mercy. (And if you do those stories Orci I want a finders fee). The question ultimately lies with the script and whether or not Orci screws him over.

    McCoy: "Can he do it?"
    Spock: "If he has the script, doctor. If he has the script."

  12. Star Trek 3: Romulan Drift by CaptSternn · · Score: 2

    Woo hoo! Now the Enterprise will have rivets in the warp core and hull, a 47 speed transmission and 5 stages of NOS. We will have a scene where Scotty's screen says "danger to warp core" as rivets shoot out killing random red shirts. Kirk will engage the NOS, driving them to warp 12 as they drag race a bird of prey. Sulu: "I live my life a quarter sector at a time." Vin Diesel can be a Klingon and Paul Walker will be a Ferengi that crashes his transport ship and dies in a fire (too soon?). I'm waiting for the new Star Trek movie where Riker wakes up and we find out the Abrams films were all just a bad dream.

  13. Re:more NOS and less lense flare by the_skywise · · Score: 2

    Uhh...
    Wrath of Khan?
    First Contact?
    Into Darkness?

  14. Re:more NOS and less lense flare by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why? Because this is going to be the MOST ACTION PACKED STAR TREK MOVIE EVER!! Fuck all that talking bullshit. This one is going to be 100mph, non-stop B A D A S S !!! More fights, more explosions, more fucking ASS KICKING than anyone has ever seen! Scene one: mad-ass crazy action. Last scene: mad-ass crazy action. Every scene in-between: mad-ass crazy action!

    Set your phasers to FUCKING AWESOME, because this movie is doing some MEGACRAZY SHIT!

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  15. Re:more NOS and less lense flare by Spy+Handler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No one will think of Wrath of Khan or First Contact when they hear the word "shit". These two were the best Trek movies period. They are classics in any sci-fi library and (IMHO) rank among the best sci-fi movies ever.

    Into Darkness on the other hand, is shit. JJ Abrams is shit. Therefore, whoever's replacing him has a low bar to overcome.

  16. Re:more NOS and less lense flare by flappinbooger · · Score: 3

    Heh... although only Simon Pegg as Scotty good get away with a line like:
    "Ach, maybe if I put some NOS into the Warp Core we could overtake 'em... what do I look like a stupid git? I'm givin' her all she's got!"

    I need TWO nosses, because I live life a quarter parsec at a time.

    --
    Flappinbooger isn't my real name
  17. Lin is not just Fast and Furious by steelfood · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's a lot of decrying of him turning Star Trek into Fast and Furious In Space, but people here either have forgotten (or more likely haven't bothered to find out) that Justin Lin did other things before taking over the Fast and the Furious franchise. Both Better Luck Tomorrow and Finishing the Game are two very good (indie) movies, the former being something of a drama and the latter a dry comedy.

    That he made his name doing muscle car racing films to pander to the masses is in no way indicative of his creative ability and vision. Of course, he could still screw it up, but it probably won't be in the ways that people here are assuming.

    On the plus side, I can't wait to see Sung Kang's cameo or bit role. That guy always has a presence in Justin Lin's movies. Hell, if this takes off, there might be significantly more minority characters in prominent roles in the Star Trek universe. Now there would be somewhere no one has gone before...

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  18. Re:more NOS and less lense flare by Talderas · · Score: 2

    Blessed is the mind to small to doubt.

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  19. Re:more NOS and less lense flare by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My opinion is that "First Contact" is the best Star Trek movie we have seen so far.

    And I think that if we are going to see an interesting Star Trek movie - throw in Quentin Tarantino.

    But to get a Star Trek movie more aligned with TOS where the social norms of the time were challenged I think that Steve McQueen should be the choice.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  20. Re:Bad Revamped Star Trek by jaklode · · Score: 3

    Wesley Crusher was the best character ever seen on television.

  21. Re:more NOS and less lense flare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This one is going to be 100mph, non-stop B A D A S S !!!

    Wow! 100mph!! They'll get to Alpha Centauri in.... just under 30 million years! ...woohoo!!!

  22. Re:more NOS and less lense flare by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

    This one is going to be 100mph

    But if the Enterprise goes 100mph, it'll be going really slowly.

    Maybe that's it. Star Trek 3 will be the first movie shot entirely in slow motion. (Don't worry Futurama fans. Star Trek 3 will be a crossover with Baywatch.)

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  23. Re:more NOS and less lense flare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If this wasn't the most MISTER TORGUE-like comment ever on slashdot, than I don't know what.

  24. Re:more NOS and less lense flare by Matheus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Honestly considering it alone without the history I don't mind Into Darkness. I like the new cast (minus old Spock... his "insertion" was of the worst forced kind) and I like JJ's style lens flares and all.

    I was completely pissed off when it was clear they were bringing Khan back.

    Wrath Of Khan is one of the best movies ever made, period. For Abrams / whomever chose the script tried to piggy back on that it was a clear statement that they couldn't move forward on their own and had to try to steal from / recreate a cinematic masterpiece. Rebooting the series does NOT mean you have to steal from it. Write your own damn stories please!

  25. Re:more NOS and less lense flare by mythosaz · · Score: 2

    You have to steal a little from it...

    Reboot or not, there's characters and "checkpoints" along the old continuum that you need to hit. It's like rebooting Spider Man but not having him face his greatest and most formidable villains. Of course Spidey faces a revamped Oswald. Of course Kirk fights revamped Khan.

  26. Re:more NOS and less lense flare by the_skywise · · Score: 5, Funny

    Laddie, don't you think you should rephrase that?

  27. Re:more NOS and less lense flare by cbhacking · · Score: 2

    The idea of a transporter that can safely put people (or anything else with about the same mass...) onto planets in other star systems is just too huge a break in the balance of power. It's literally an apocalyptic weapon; unless you can figure out how to put transporter-proof shields around every valuable target you've got (and remember here that a planet counts as a valuable target, if you can beam a big enough antimatter bomb much less some "red matter"). It's a modern stealth bomber when your enemies have nothing newer than steam engines. The Borg don't have anything that comes close to being as effective a weapon, and they have single ships capable of defeating fleets and time travel tech (First Contact).

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  28. Re:more NOS and less lense flare by OolimPhon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Even more blessed is the mind who can spell correctly.

  29. Re:more NOS and less lense flare by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

    No one will think of Wrath of Khan or First Contact when they hear the word "shit". These two were the best Trek movies period.

    I hate what they did with the Borg. They went from a terrifying, leaderless race of aliens with a goal of self improvement to a queen with a bunch of mindless zombies (drones) with a goal of absolute power.

  30. Re:more NOS and less lense flare by Krishnoid · · Score: 2

    It's literally an apocalyptic weapon; unless you can figure out how to put transporter-proof shields around every valuable target you've got (and remember here that a planet counts as a valuable target, if you can beam a big enough antimatter bomb much less some "red matter").

    Here you go. It definitely makes things more interesting.