Spider-Man 4

[MadasaHatter]

Aww, I actually really liked Doc Oc. Venom was crap as was Green Goblin 2 but Sandman was ok. At least the did a nice job with the CG.

[disneyboy20022]

There is one villain who should come in either 4 or 5 since they've been hinting him and re-hiring him since Spidey 2...,

Doc Connors aka The Lizard


I mean they must have him in Spidey 2 and even 3 for that....unless they just wanted the character for nostalgia purposes...I think we need to see this villain develop in the next movie....

Although I would caution about adding too many villains.....There an old saying that you shouldn't put all your best eggs in one basket....

[MadasaHatter]

There is one villain who should come in either 4 or 5 since they've been hinting him and re-hiring him since Spidey 2...,

Doc Connors aka The Lizard


I mean they must have him in Spidey 2 and even 3 for that....unless they just wanted the character for nostalgia purposes...I think we need to see this villain develop in the next movie....

Although I would caution about adding too many villains.....There an old saying that you shouldn't put all your best eggs in one basket....

I COULDN'T AGREE MORE!!

[Escapay]

It can't possibly be any worse than the musical comedy that was Spider-Man 3, so I'm looking forward to the fourth film. Plus, maybe the Spider-Man franchise will be like the Star Trek one and the even-numbered films are better than the odd-numbered ones (even if even-numbered Nemesis was a train wreck and odd-numbered-rebooted Star Trek was awesome)

albert

As a "Star Trek" fan, I'd have to disagree with you. Abrams simply turned "Star Trek" into "Star Wars" and I for one am rather ticked off by that! But, I get what you are saying.

As a "Star Trek" fan as well, I'd have to disagree with you.

IMO, Abrams gave the franchise the shot in the arm it needed if it seriously wants to compete with other scifi blockbusters. As great as original "Trek" and TV "Trek" is, the movies suffer from being considered overlong TV episodes (especially Insurrection, which I feel is highly underrated but would have been better fit as a two-part TNG episode), and the reboot helped get rid of the stigma by simply providing an exciting fun-filled romp around the galaxy with characters we were familiar with - though most people probably met the for the first time. It was a "Trek" that anyone could get into, not just the fans and scifi nurds.

albert

[DarthPrime]

There is one villain who should come in either 4 or 5 since they've been hinting him and re-hiring him since Spidey 2...,

Doc Connors aka The Lizard


I mean they must have him in Spidey 2 and even 3 for that....unless they just wanted the character for nostalgia purposes...I think we need to see this villain develop in the next movie....

Although I would caution about adding too many villains.....There an old saying that you shouldn't put all your best eggs in one basket....

Lizard needs to be in 4 if they are going to use him. I hope they go back to having 1 villian, or maybe 2 (at the most).

The first two movies were good, but 3 was a huge train wreck. It wasn't all Venom either... Just a mess. I hope 4 is good, but I'm going in with very low expectations based on the last movie.

[ajmrowland]

Spidey 3 was lacking, but you can't say the ending wasn't meant to end the series. This'll likely be just another sequel made purely for profit. Nothing more, nothing less.

[milojthatch]

As a "Star Trek" fan, I'd have to disagree with you. Abrams simply turned "Star Trek" into "Star Wars" and I for one am rather ticked off by that! But, I get what you are saying.

As a "Star Trek" fan as well, I'd have to disagree with you.

IMO, Abrams gave the franchise the shot in the arm it needed if it seriously wants to compete with other scifi blockbusters. As great as original "Trek" and TV "Trek" is, the movies suffer from being considered overlong TV episodes (especially Insurrection, which I feel is highly underrated but would have been better fit as a two-part TNG episode), and the reboot helped get rid of the stigma by simply providing an exciting fun-filled romp around the galaxy with characters we were familiar with - though most people probably met the for the first time. It was a "Trek" that anyone could get into, not just the fans and scifi nurds.

albert

Dude, it's NOT Star Trek! It's more "Star Wars" then "Star Trek!" Watch this:

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892

And for heaven sakes, they even stick R2D2 in it!

http://www.trektoday.com/content/2009/0 ... unced.html


"Star Trek" is back, but at what cost?

[milojthatch]

There is one villain who should come in either 4 or 5 since they've been hinting him and re-hiring him since Spidey 2...,

Doc Connors aka The Lizard


I mean they must have him in Spidey 2 and even 3 for that....unless they just wanted the character for nostalgia purposes...I think we need to see this villain develop in the next movie....

Although I would caution about adding too many villains.....There an old saying that you shouldn't put all your best eggs in one basket....

Lizard needs to be in 4 if they are going to use him. I hope they go back to having 1 villian, or maybe 2 (at the most).

The first two movies were good, but 3 was a huge train wreck. It wasn't all Venom either... Just a mess. I hope 4 is good, but I'm going in with very low expectations based on the last movie.

I want Lizard too! Or other members of the Sinister Six so that they can come together in Spidey 5 or 6!

[Escapay]

Dude, it's NOT Star Trek! It's more "Star Wars" then "Star Trek!" Watch this:

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892

And for heaven sakes, they even stick R2D2 in it!

http://www.trektoday.com/content/2009/0 ... unced.html


"Star Trek" is back, but at what cost?

Dude, it's called an opinion! You think the new Trek is more Wars than Trek, and I think the new Trek is fine as it is (and for the record, I'm not a big fan of Star Wars - I enjoy it as mindless space adventures, but I take Star Trek more seriously) as it's now more accessible to other moviegoers rather than just cater to Trekkies.

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02LgdXVkXgM

Star Trek is back, be glad for that. Because who honestly gives a rat's ass if if they cheekily decided to add R2D2 in the background for a brief shot? (answer: disgruntled Star Wars fans and disgruntled Trekkies unhappy with the new film)

albert

[SpringHeelJack]

BUT AT WHAT COST?!?!

[Escapay]

The respect of a percentage of disgruntled Trekkies angry that Trek filmmakers would even think about having anything Wars-related in their beloved film franchise.

Gosh, I'd hate to think what they'd say when they read that Chris Pine based his portrayal of Captain Kirk on Indiana Jones and *gasp* Han Solo.

albert

[Flanger-Hanger]

BUT AT WHAT COST?!?!

Making 95% of RT critics happy and getting $232 million so far in it's domestic release alone?

[SpringHeelJack]

AT WHAT COOOOOOSSSSST?!?!?!

[Flanger-Hanger]

AT WHAT COOOOOOSSSSST?!?!?!

YOU'RE VERY SOUL!

[2099net]

<kirk>Piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnneeeeeeee!</kirk>

As I've said before elsewhere, I'm not really a Star Trek person, but I was blown away by (the incredibly imaginative titled*) Star Trek. I don't really see how anyone could be upset by it. It goes out of its way to show this isn't the same time-line, and thus aren't quite the same characters. Kirk may not be the Kirk we know, but he's had a different upbringing. Vulcan is blown-up, a bold "no going back" move which also firmly states that this "franchise" is here to stay, but "Classic" Trek isn't devalued or destroyed.

But beyond all that, something which is the most important. Star Trek worked 1000% (yes, one thousand percent) emotionally. I've never seen a highly budgeted blockbuster with as much emotion for years (except for probably Jackson's King Kong - but I think Star Trek's still the winner). Everything in Star Trek was first and foremost about the story. It had kisses to the past liberally sprinkled throughout - but nothing to interfere or distract from the story and the characters.

And, Star Trek's story was a cracker of a story. From the opening sequence, it had you hooked. I know this film had to make it's own path in the continuity by its very nature, but generally story always wins out over continuity.

As for Spider-Man 4, I believe lessons have been learned. More importantly, I think those lessons have not been learned by Rami (who, I think didn't need to learn any) but by "the powers that be" at Sony and Marvel. I know some people did enjoy Spider-Man 3, but to me it was nothing but a mess. But I feel every single reason for that mess can be put down to editorial decisions rather than creative decisions.

Ironically, Star Trek shows how franchises flourish when left in the hands of passionate, professional and talented creators, and editorial control is kept to the minimum. You know, like how Spider-Man 2 did...

* One of the reasons I was so down on seeing the movie at first was the title "Star Trek". It sounds like a quick, cash-in. I mean, there's even no subtitle. I'm a little perplexed how a film crafted with as much skill and love can end up being titled simply "Star Trek".

[milojthatch]

The respect of a percentage of disgruntled Trekkies angry that Trek filmmakers would even think about having anything Wars-related in their beloved film franchise.

Gosh, I'd hate to think what they'd say when they read that Chris Pine based his portrayal of Captain Kirk on Indiana Jones and *gasp* Han Solo.

albert

More stuff to look at:

http://movies.ign.com/articles/982/982293p1.html

http://www.trektoday.com/content/2009/0 ... unced.html

Look, it's like this, as a person who was fully invested in THE Star Trek universe, I feel let down. I wanted more Next Gen, or a DS9 movie or even a Voyager or Enterprise film. These characters have been with me my whole life and are a big part of my childhood and teen years. I stuck around the franchise when many others jumped ship and this is the thanks I get? And I know I'm not alone in that feeling. I have a whole group on Facebook of people who feel the same way.

I also wish that they had at least made darn sure that it had nothing to do with the REAL Star Trek universe. They should have made it a clear re-boot since that is what Hollywood seems to like these days. Do they however? No. Instead they blow up THE REAL Romulus and take out THE REAL Spock. I have a hard time believing that after all those adventures, where the first thing he would do was try to find a way back to his time or reality, in this film Spock kind of just sits on his hands and seems ok with not being in his real time or reality.

I fully understand that in the movie world, ideas are copied from other movies, but this one is so blatant we really need to start calling it "Star Wars" instead. Here we have a man who was given the keys to the Enterprise so to speak who many times has full on stated that he never got "Star Trek" and is a bigger "Star Wars" fan. Then, surprise surprise, the movie he makes turns out to be more of a "Star Wars" tribute then anything resembling the beloved "Star Trek" franchise. It is rather blatant that Mr. Abrams felt that to make "Star Trek" "work" it need to be more like "Star Wars." The word "work" in these terms meaning bring in a far larger fan base then it has ever really had before. The problem with that logic is that for many, many people, it already "worked." That is why we had five shows and ten movies! Basically, MR. Abrams sold Trek out to the Devil to make it more "popular."

Did this movie make a bunch of money? Sure it did, but so what? The last Indy made a bunch of money too, yet I continue to hear the belly aching of fans on that film! An d yet, it frankly stated far more true to it's past then this movie did it's own past. Did it bring in a bunch of new fans? Yes, but fans that don't get "Star Trek" and most likely never could. These are "Star Wars" fans who saw their movie inside this one, end of story.

As a REAL Star Trek fan, I mourn my beloved franchise and for once disagree with the direction they are taking it and feel the need to get off the Enterprise. This is NOT Star Trek and frankly never will be...

(Oh yes, by the way, I already knew Pine based his performance on Harrison Ford. Not a big deal.)

[2099net]

As I've said before, I'm not a big Star Trek fan. I never got into the original series, and I was working when most of the new stuff was shown (in the UK they tended to show it at around 6pm on a weeknight and this was before the days of PVRs).

However, I do notice that people consider to be a success for modern Trek is almost the exact opposite of the original vision of the original series. The success of the Borg alone is totally at odds with Roddenberry's concept of what Star Fleet was supposed to be. While given the command structure of Star Fleet I don't accept it was supposed to be absolutely non-military, it was supposed to be just as much about diplomacy and ethics as about warring and fighting. Yet, that's all the Borg are good for. And the most popular story (The Best of Both Worlds) is nothing but space zapping, brave commando raids etc. And of course, that trend continued with other Borg stories, the DS9 arc and more.

And ironically, the season of ST: TNG which was more or less Roddenberry's vision of the show and the future (it's first) is often seen by many as a failure. [shrugs]

So is this new Star Trek movie anti-Trek? I would say no, because while it may be radically different from 60's Trek, its not radically different from our more modern Treks. And anything from the 60's which survives today is radically different from what it was before by necessity- be it Star Trek, Doctor Who or various film remakes/re-imaginings. Of course, sometimes these new directions fail, but making them the same as the past would fail too. Even timeless classics like Shakespeare are adjusted and slightly re-staged to be contemporary - see David Tennant's award winning Hamlet which keeps the text but has a totally contemporary performance and feel.

[Escapay]

Look, it's like this, as a person who was fully invested in THE Star Trek universe, I feel let down. I wanted more Next Gen, or a DS9 movie or even a Voyager or Enterprise film. These characters have been with me my whole life and are a big part of my childhood and teen years.

Good for you. I've been a Trekker since 1992 so I know the feeling. But even so, all we are, and all we'll ever be are fans. Unless you've got some contacts in Hollywood or happen to be related to a Roddenberry (or now I guess an Abrams), there's not much else you can do.

I stuck around the franchise when many others jumped ship and this is the thanks I get?

Thanks? You expect filmmakers to thank you for watching their tv shows and movies, buying their products, and talking about them online? Sure, fans make up the core viewing audience, but the filmmakers don't (and shouldn't) pander to the fans wishes. When they try to, it becomes a mess (case in point: "Attack of the Cybermen" from Doctor Who. It's rife with nods to the past but is a train wreck of a story).

I don't expect fans to sit and take it, though. They have their right to complain or criticise, but no matter how many rants they throw on the internet, in the end it's just empty words to a filmmaker who has to deliver to everyone, not just fans.

And I know I'm not alone in that feeling. I have a whole group on Facebook of people who feel the same way.

JJ Abrams and company must feel so threatened now.

I also wish that they had at least made darn sure that it had nothing to do with the REAL Star Trek universe. They should have made it a clear re-boot since that is what Hollywood seems to like these days. Do they however? No. Instead they blow up THE REAL Romulus and take out THE REAL Spock. I have a hard time believing that after all those adventures, where the first thing he would do was try to find a way back to his time or reality, in this film Spock kind of just sits on his hands and seems ok with not being in his real time or reality.

Spock is old. He's lived a good life. He's lost a lot of people close to him. And now he has the opportunity to not only revisit them, but re-establish his people. If he returned to the future, it still would be the alternate universe's future and not the prime universe's.

I fully understand that in the movie world, ideas are copied from other movies, but this one is so blatant we really need to start calling it "Star Wars" instead. Here we have a man who was given the keys to the Enterprise so to speak who many times has full on stated that he never got "Star Trek" and is a bigger "Star Wars" fan. Then, surprise surprise, the movie he makes turns out to be more of a "Star Wars" tribute then anything resembling the beloved "Star Trek" franchise. It is rather blatant that Mr. Abrams felt that to make "Star Trek" "work" it need to be more like "Star Wars." The word "work" in these terms meaning bring in a far larger fan base then it has ever really had before. The problem with that logic is that for many, many people, it already "worked." That is why we had five shows and ten movies! Basically, MR. Abrams sold Trek out to the Devil to make it more "popular."

I'm not going to bother. Rants are best left alone.



ETA:

While I won't bother, I'll quote one of the comments from the IGN article you posted:

• This is very frustrating. Star Trek didn't steal "Star Wars Elements". Both stories run off the idea of a 'monomyth', a term introduced by author Joseph Campbell in his book "The Hero with a Thousand Faces". It's a book exploring comparative mythology from all over the world. In every single myth lies the canon of a 'monomyth' which is defined by Campbell as follows.
  
  "A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man"
  
  George Lucas has stated on film, in writing, and on other various occasions that Campbell was a huge driving force for his story telling mechanic (Check out the original Trilogy DVD Commentary). The idea of the commoner becoming something great, having the mentor, facing a conflict and the love triangle, and every other thing we see in films today is coming from an established formula.
  
  So don't rip on Abrams and Star Trek for 'stealing' Star Wars' formula. Both directors are just intelligent enough to use the story line that has worked literally throughout the past 2 millenniums. Wikipedia the book, google it, read it even. Every single element from both these moves are in that book. They are both excellent films for a reason.
  
  -Posted by: Chesty_Puller on May 13, 2009 20:01 PDT

As a REAL Star Trek fan

Oh god, don't give me that pretentious bullsh!t.

A fan is a fan is a fan, and the whole concept of "new fan" or "true fan" or "real fan" is all in the eye of the beholder, and IMO, anyone who calls him/herself a "true/real" fan of something is doing so out of snobbery towards other fans who don't happen to share their opinions, or new fans who who has just discovered whatever it is they're a fan of.

"A true fan of James Bond would agree that Sean Connery was the best and Timothy Dalton was crap!"

"A true fan of Star Trek would disregard anything that had no input from Gene Roddenberry!"

"A true fan of silverware would never ever use chopsticks!"

"A true fan of life will find a way to live forever!"

It's elitist and ridiculous.

Anyone can be a fan of what "Star Trek" was, but that does not make them a REAL fan, as there never was, never is, and never will be on.

The problem with franchise fans is that they feel they're entitled to what they want without regarding what the filmmakers and the studios want. Sure, it sucks sometimes, but if you don't like it, then you don't like it. It does not give you the right to say that you or anyone who agrees with you is a "real" fan compared to someone who has equally invested their childhood/teen years/etc. into the franchise but does like what the filmmakers have done.

This is NOT Star Trek and frankly never will be...

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

However, I do notice that people consider to be a success for modern Trek is almost the exact opposite of the original vision of the original series.

The success of the Borg alone is totally at odds with Roddenberry's concept of what Star Fleet was supposed to be. While given the command structure of Star Fleet I don't accept it was supposed to be absolutely non-military, it was supposed to be just as much about diplomacy and ethics as about warring and fighting. Yet, that's all the Borg are good for. And the most popular story (The Best of Both Worlds) is nothing but space zapping, brave commando raids etc. And of course, that trend continued with other Borg stories, the DS9 arc and more.

It was necessary, IMO. If all "Star Trek" ever did was diplomacy and discussion, it would not hold an audience (beyond its most ardent fans). Sure, it gets space-opera a bit, but when the story deals with cybernetic beings who plan to destroy a way of life in order to expand their own, diplomacy be damned.

And ironically, the season of ST: TNG which was more or less Roddenberry's vision of the show and the future (it's first) is often seen by many as a failure. [shrugs]

I think it had more to do with the fact that it was the first season. First seasons usually have to take time to find their footing, and while it's not the weakest in TNG's 7-season run (that honor belongs to Season 2), it has signs of not really fitting together yet.

Had Roddenberry continued on in the other seasons with the amount of creative control he had in the first season, later seasons might have been radically different from what they were (if the show lasted that long), and we honestly will never know if it would have been for better or for worse.

So is this new Star Trek movie anti-Trek? I would say no, because while it may be radically different from 60's Trek, its not radically different from our more modern Treks.

And anything from the 60's which survives today is radically different from what it was before by necessity- be it Star Trek, Doctor Who or various film remakes/re-imaginings. Of course, sometimes these new directions fail, but making them the same as the past would fail too. Even timeless classics like Shakespeare are adjusted and slightly re-staged to be contemporary - see David Tennant's award winning Hamlet which keeps the text but has a totally contemporary performance and feel.

again

It's even pink elephant worthy:



albert

[milojthatch]

As I've said before, I'm not a big Star Trek fan. I never got into the original series, and I was working when most of the new stuff was shown (in the UK they tended to show it at around 6pm on a weeknight and this was before the days of PVRs).

However, I do notice that people consider to be a success for modern Trek is almost the exact opposite of the original vision of the original series. The success of the Borg alone is totally at odds with Roddenberry's concept of what Star Fleet was supposed to be. While given the command structure of Star Fleet I don't accept it was supposed to be absolutely non-military, it was supposed to be just as much about diplomacy and ethics as about warring and fighting. Yet, that's all the Borg are good for. And the most popular story (The Best of Both Worlds) is nothing but space zapping, brave commando raids etc. And of course, that trend continued with other Borg stories, the DS9 arc and more.

And ironically, the season of ST: TNG which was more or less Roddenberry's vision of the show and the future (it's first) is often seen by many as a failure. [shrugs]

So is this new Star Trek movie anti-Trek? I would say no, because while it may be radically different from 60's Trek, its not radically different from our more modern Treks. And anything from the 60's which survives today is radically different from what it was before by necessity- be it Star Trek, Doctor Who or various film remakes/re-imaginings. Of course, sometimes these new directions fail, but making them the same as the past would fail too. Even timeless classics like Shakespeare are adjusted and slightly re-staged to be contemporary - see David Tennant's award winning Hamlet which keeps the text but has a totally contemporary performance and feel.

I think you are missing the point, but that is ok. I don't care as much about JUST the "spirit" of the story, but also the continuity of the story itself. Not much sure how much more I can make this understood. I'm happy you like the new movie, good for you. I'm sad that Star Trek has ended, but at least I have ten films and five shows to enjoy for the rest of my life, I'm good.

"Re-boots," "re-makes," or "re-imaginations" are more times then not never necessary but rather a sign of a lack of imagination. They are rather cheep ways for Hollywood to make an extra buck without having to come up with an original story and keep that one going. This is one reason why I'm a fan of Pixar, becuase thus far, they have yet to do any "re-imaginings."

Anyway, we are getting of topic and I'm just as big of a Spidey fan as I am Star Trek! So, back to Spidey 4...

...I'm really looking forward to this new film! I really hope in time we get the Sinister Six! That would be so cool! I hope for this film though that we get Kraven the Hunter and the Lizard!

[milojthatch]

Look, it's like this, as a person who was fully invested in THE Star Trek universe, I feel let down. I wanted more Next Gen, or a DS9 movie or even a Voyager or Enterprise film. These characters have been with me my whole life and are a big part of my childhood and teen years.

Good for you. I've been a Trekker since 1992 so I know the feeling. But even so, all we are, and all we'll ever be are fans. Unless you've got some contacts in Hollywood or happen to be related to a Roddenberry (or now I guess an Abrams), there's not much else you can do.


albert

For saying you don't care what I think, you sure are fast to respond and fight it! I'm happy you enjoy this new "Trek," good for you. I think the fact is when ever you talk about entertainment, you will always get different ideas on what is good and what is not. As I have already talked about on another topic, Hollywood is first and foremost a business that wants your money. So, they try different things to get you to pay the bucks to see their films and sometimes they get the large numbers they want and it by their definition "works" and sometimes not so much.

I think this new Trek is crap, you don't. It made the big bucks so for now, this is the version will will go with. Guys like me loose out, guys like you are so happy you can't hold the pee in your pants. Good for you.

I could complain more, but there really isn't much more of a point, and besides, I do have five tv shows and ten films. I really miss Star Trek and wish they would keep THE time line going, but oh well, it was a good run. But, I think I'm done fight about STAR TREK on a SPIDER-MAN thread.

So, back on topic, I can not wait for Spidey 4!