Star Trek Into Darkness

[Dashel]

When they have replicators? Your point is a good one, but for good or bad, those are generally things that Trek never bothered with (compared to say, the movie Sunshine etc). I assumed all 'normal' elements were in abundant supply, were they not?

[Draconian Guppy]

Re: the water plant -

Water is a good coolant, can be catalyzed into O2 and H2 for breathing and for making methane (a fuel, chemical precursor, and also an easy way to "store" hydrogen - a testy thing to store otherwise) using the Sabatier process, sewage, drinking, bathing etc. etc. It's uses are endless, and superheated steam is a great propellant (ex: nuclear thermal rocket.)

You have thousands of people on a ship the size of a small city, trillions of miles in space with all those potential uses and you don't think they'd need a large closed-cycle water treatment plant on board?

Water is good coolant, but not the best coolant and on that logic, you wouldn't want water for cooling a nuclear reactor, used for human consumption, ever. yes I know I'm going completely against everything in the star trek universe, but one would think, they would have better water treatment options :p

[Scorbing]

Now that J.J Abrams is done with Star Trek to concentrate on Star Wars, the likelihood of him returning as director for the 3rd installment of Star Trek is slim, so who do you think should direct the next Star Trek movie?

 

1. James Cameron

2. Riddley Scott

3. Christopher Nolan

4. Michael Bay (yes, I said it)

5. Zack Ryder

6. Joss Whedon

 

Those are high caliber directors who I personally think will do an excellent job. Michael Bay being an action scene freak will do a great job as far as keeping people on the edge of their seats with those mind-blowing action scenes and heavy CGI effects.

 

Who else do you think should take over?

[Kyang]

I'm a little more concerned about who will write it.

[DocM]

Abrams is producing so he'll be looking over their shoulders

[DClark]

Abrams is producing so he'll be looking over their shoulders

The lens flare must go on.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

Now that J.J Abrams is done with Star Trek to concentrate on Star Wars, the likelihood of him returning as director for the 3rd installment of Star Trek is slim, so who do you think should direct the next Star Trek movie?

 

1. James Cameron

2. Riddley Scott

3. Christopher Nolan

4. Michael Bay (yes, I said it)

5. Zack Ryder

6. Joss Whedon

 

Those are high caliber directors who I personally think will do an excellent job. Michael Bay being an action scene freak will do a great job as far as keeping people on the edge of their seats with those mind-blowing action scenes and heavy CGI effects.

 

Who else do you think should take over?

 

 

 

Really?  Really?  

Firstly I see him doing both.

 

Secondly, did you just name 6 random big-name directors, 4 of which would certainly not fit at all?

[Scorbing]

Really?  Really?  

Firstly I see him doing both.

 

Secondly, did you just name 6 random big-name directors, 4 of which would certainly not fit at all?

 

 

And exactly what is wrong with big name directors and why would they not fit? Ridley Scott is a veteran Sci-Fi director and so is James Cameron. I am quite sure they will jump to it if the right amount of money is put on the table and if they are satisfied with the script. Back in the days of the original crew and STNG I can understand why they would not fit, but this is a new crew. More agressive. More serious. This is not your grandma's Star Trek. 

 

What is your suggestions as a director if Abrams won't do it?

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

Ridley Scott is a veteran Sci-Fi director and so is James Cameron.

 

THAT is your defence?  They are completely differently styled directors!

 

I am quite sure they will jump to it if the right amount of money is put on the table and if they are satisfied with the script.

 

What dream world are you living in?

 

Back in the days of the original crew and STNG I can understand why they would not fit, but this is a new crew. More agressive. More serious. This is not your grandma's Star Trek. 

 

Sweet Jesus. "Not your grandma's Star Trek"?  What does that even mean.  It's nothing VASTLY different - it's merely an evolutionary retelling.  Some of the TNG/DS9 era directors could do a very decent job with this new style of storyline.

 

So, you equate, let's say, Ridley with an "aggressive sci-fi franchise"?  Sorry, this is entirely laughable.

 

For crying out loud.  Zack Ryder is a wrestler.  If you mean Snyder... So you HAVE just basically pulled a bunch of big names out of your butt.

 

Now who would I suggest?

 

JJ - because I have no doubt he will be all over the next film whatsoever.  Take him out of the picture?  Andrew Niccol, maybe Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Edward Zick.

[Scorbing]

THAT is your defence?  They are completely differently styled directors!

 

What dream world are you living in?

 

Sweet Jesus. "Not your grandma's Star Trek"?  What does that even mean.  It's nothing VASTLY different - it's merely an evolutionary retelling.  Some of the TNG/DS9 era directors could do a very decent job with this new style of storyline.

 

So, you equate, let's say, Ridley with an "aggressive sci-fi franchise"?  Sorry, this is entirely laughable.

 

For crying out loud.  Zack Ryder is a wrestler.  If you mean Snyder... So you HAVE just basically pulled a bunch of big names out of your butt.

 

Now who would I suggest?

 

JJ - because I have no doubt he will be all over the next film whatsoever.  Take him out of the picture?  Andrew Niccol, maybe Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Edward Zick.

 

 

 

 

 

You people are so negative about everything. That's why I hardly come to this forum anymore. Whatever dude.

[Praetor]

i saw the movie twice, i like it a lot since it had elements from previous movies; it appeals to younger generations but also pleases old folks who sit down in the night to watch TOS, TNG, Voyager...

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

You people are so negative about everything. That's why I hardly come to this forum anymore. Whatever dude.

You post such nonsense and expect it to not to be questioned.  The directors you cite would be entirely inappropriate and seem to have no understanding of why.

[Som]

Now that J.J Abrams is done with Star Trek to concentrate on Star Wars, the likelihood of him returning as director for the 3rd installment of Star Trek is slim, so who do you think should direct the next Star Trek movie?

 

1. James Cameron

2. Riddley Scott

3. Christopher Nolan

4. Michael Bay (yes, I said it)

5. Zack Ryder

6. Joss Whedon

 

Those are high caliber directors who I personally think will do an excellent job. Michael Bay being an action scene freak will do a great job as far as keeping people on the edge of their seats with those mind-blowing action scenes and heavy CGI effects.

 

Who else do you think should take over?

 

 

1. James Cameron  --- it would take him 12 years

2. Riddley Scott --- makes absolutely no sense what so ever 

3. Christopher Nolan --- is this the highest grossing directors list or somthing....

4. Michael Bay (yes, I said it) --- refer to picture above (michael bay should only direct me to my seat at the cinema)

5. Zack Ryder  --- sigh

6. Joss Whedon  --- i wish but he's way too busy...

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

Please at least address why you feel that a low-card wrestler should direct a Star Trek film?

[REM2000]

dunno who i would get to direct the next star trek film, JJ Abrams has really made it his own.

 

It's hard because you need a director that's half cameron and half bay, serious writing underneath with some glitz on top. 

 

Shame he can't/won't do a third, be nice to have a trilogy. 

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

Shame he can't/won't do a third, be nice to have a trilogy.

Source?

 

He WOULD have time between Star Wars trilogy movies.

[DocM]

Not if they shoot them fully or partly simultaneously like they have many other series.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

I thought there were to be non trilogy films in between?

[ToneKnee]

No more I say.  Just give us another series or let Star Trek Enterprise continue with a 5th season (Romulan War anyone?) Or something post-nemesis.

[monkeylove]

Multiple plot holes for this one.

[George P Global Moderator]

There will be a third, if JJ directs or not might change but no way the studio will not cash in on a 3rd movie.   And iirc the actors have all signed up for 3 movies.   The movie made over $220 million in the US and another $217 million in the rest of the world.   No way Paramount turns it's back on it now, and I bet they're going to be pushing for more than a trilogy as well.

[Scorbing]

One of the most awesome scenes on the movie

 

[Dot Matrix]

Into Darkness SUCKED.

 

 

Sorry, did I say that out loud?

[Scorbing]

Into Darkness SUCKED.

 

 

Sorry, did I say that out loud?

 

 

Oh come on. Get serious. What SUCKED about it? Please tell us.

[Dot Matrix]

Oh come on. Get serious. What SUCKED about it? Please tell us.

Just about everything. First of all, Benedict Cumberbatch is NOT Khan. VERY BAD choice in actors. Second, since when does the Earth suck in starships? Thirdly, why was the Enterprise hidden underwater when it could have been parked in geosynchronous orbit for line of sight transport?

This movie just destroyed any sort of scientific belief, scientific canon, you name it. "The Final Frontier" or even "Nemesis" have more going for it than "Into Darkness" does.