Originally posted by Darth ThorAssholes like you criticized the last film for not being a trek enough. So thank yourself for the departure from the Klingon war since that would be too much like Star Wars. You're such an idiotic hypocrite.
Yes Klingons! They've been building Klingons up for the last 2 movies, so why da f*** did we not get Klingons to finish the trilogy?And Idris Elba could have played an Awesome Klingon.
Wasted opportunity IMO.
Originally posted by SurturThe budget was around 185 million so it wasn't slashed. People like playa think this was the best of the trilogy. What the hell is wrong with this guy ? It's like saying Cap 1 is the best of the trilogy.
So I'm pretty much blaming the production of this movie. As I said, we were given signs something wasn't right months ago when various people involved expressed misgivings about the films.The movie was rushed, the budget slashed, and yet the studios still thought this could be a billion dollar earner or something close.
This is a very unfortunate thing. It's like when you play a really awesome video game that gets really awful towards the end because the people making it were rushed.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Yes Klingons! They've been building Klingons up for the last 2 movies, so why da f*** did we not get Klingons to finish the trilogy?And Idris Elba could have played an Awesome Klingon.
Wasted opportunity IMO.
Could still happen if the 4th ends up materializing.
In this time-line the Klingon homeworld moon has already ruptured, so they could build a story around that and the Klingon's need to expand to survive.
Originally posted by Robtard
Could still happen if the 4th ends up materializing.In this time-line the Klingon homeworld moon has already ruptured, so they could build a story around that and the Klingon's need to expand to survive.
I rewatched the first 2 over the weekend before watching this, and honestly they were both building up to war with the Klingons. And who wouldn't love that?
So I know they can go back and still do that, but just feel like this 3rd film was kind of a waste, and dented what was almost a pretty Epic trilogy.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Yes Klingons! They've been building Klingons up for the last 2 movies, so why da f*** did we not get Klingons to finish the trilogy?And Idris Elba could have played an Awesome Klingon.
Wasted opportunity IMO.
That would basically throw out all the lessons supposedly learned by the end of Into Darkness; Admiral Marcus isn't supposed to be proven right in the long scheme of things.
And Klingons are too popular to be the big bad to go to war against. Ever since The Next Generation days, they've fit the role of being the Federation's tough but honourable ally, like Grimlock to Optimus Prime.
The Federation did have several skimishes and then a very long cold war with the Klingons, nothing really happened in the first two films to point away from the conflict not happening in a similar fashion in the JJ time-line. If anything, Khan's actions in ST:ID helped to fuel that.
Personally, I'd prefer a joint Klingon/Romulan venture against the Federation. Like a spin/homage of the alt time-line in ST:TNG.
Originally posted by Robtard
The Federation did have several skimishes and then a very long cold war with the Klingons, nothing really happened in the first two films to point away from the conflict not happening in a similar fashion in the JJ time-line. If anything, Khan's actions in ST:ID helped to fuel that.Personally, I'd prefer a joint Klingon/Romulan venture against the Federation. Like a spin/homage of the alt time-line in ST:TNG.
Even the third film reinforces the message of the times of war being past, we should concentrate on winning the peace instead. The Earth-Romulan war still happened (as it was before the timeline changed.) Romulans don't make alliances with anyone, and the Klingons would never trust the Romulans to make any alliance.
I know we are in a new continuity and anything should be on the table, but...
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Yeah I could see that. Its kind of funny to think that one race could take on a supposed Federation made up of several worlds and races. [/B]
Not all the races that make up the Federation are powerful, while the Klingon Empire is strictly military driven as are the Romulans in a fashion.
Originally posted by roughrider
Even the third film reinforces the message of the times of war being past, we should concentrate on winning the peace instead. The Earth-Romulan war still happened (as it was before the timeline changed.) Romulans don't make alliances with anyone, and the Klingons would never trust the Romulans to make any alliance.I know we are in a new continuity and anything should be on the table, but...
A Klingon/Romulan alliance has happened in an alt time-line and even in the main time-line in DS9; though the latter was temporary to fight off a common foe.
I think the point of it being an alternate time-line is that it leaves it open for pretty much anything, at least that's my view of it. eg They could write in the Borg reaching the quadrant decades earlier to attack Earth and without Q being the reason as to why, with a clever enough writer. Doubt that will happened, but it's not an impossibility.
Originally posted by quanchi112
The budget was around 185 million so it wasn't slashed. People like playa think this was the best of the trilogy. What the hell is wrong with this guy ? It's like saying Cap 1 is the best of the trilogy.
It was slashed, did you not notice they spent the same amount on Into Darkness?
Originally posted by roughrider
That would basically throw out all the lessons supposedly learned by the end of Into Darkness; Admiral Marcus isn't supposed to be proven right in the long scheme of things.And Klingons are too popular to be the big bad to go to war against. Ever since The Next Generation days, they've fit the role of being the Federation's tough but honourable ally, like Grimlock to Optimus Prime.
Disagree. Guys like Marcus are usually right in their Threat Analysis (which is why guys like him would get a lot of followers), but what ultimately makes him Wrong is he reacts to the extreme and basically becomes the bad guy himself.
Remember though when he says to Kirk "War is coming, and whose gonna lead us? YOU?!".. So where Marcus can be proven wrong is when someone like Kirk whose working for peace can also lead during war times.
Oh Klingons are popular as allies and villains. Remember when DS9 made them villains again, and we got The Way of the Warrior, one of the best Trek episode and plots. But then when they became allies later, they became their Most loyal allies, and that worked brilliantly as well.
Originally posted by playa1258That is what I'm up against these cerebral nerds love their snooze fests. I want an intergalactic war play out in the Star Trek universe on the big screen with a mammoth type budget. The two super ships Abrams came up with for Trek are better than any of the super ships seen thus far in Star Wars. It's a shame Abrams probably won't ever return to direct.
The vocal crybaby hardcore Trek fans would shit their pants if their is a war with the Klingons.They want every film to be a two hour "Measure of a Man" or "Tin Man".
The budget was $185 million after around $20 million was cut.
Sequels almost always spend more money than the previous installment. Unless it's a situation where the movies are all filmed back to back.
After the 2009 reboot came out the budget was increased over $30 million for Into Darkness. After Into Darkness came out the budget was increased and then it wasn't and ended up coming back down to the same budget as Into Darkness. Whatever you want to describe that as..it is not a good sign.
Originally posted by SurturThe budget for Into Darknessis was 190 million. 5 million less is not slashed, sport. You also made that up that sequels are always more.
The budget was $185 million after around $20 million was cut.Sequels almost always spend more money than the previous installment. Unless it's a situation where the movies are all filmed back to back.
I said sequels almost always spend more, not always. Though I mostly meant special effect heavy movies.
You missed my edit: Trek 2009 was $150 million. After that it got an increase for Into Darkness. After Into Darkness it got an increase and then it was reduced back to practically the same amount Into Darkness got. Whatever label you want to use it doesn't change the fact that isn't a good sign.