#31
RoyBatty (Steve) wrote:
I didn’t mind the Spock - Uhura thing. But Anton Yelchin’s accent was very over-the-top. I know he was probably encouraged to play for laughs but it seemed a little too much imo.
Posted on Tue, 19 May 2009 at 14:42
#32
Squall wrote:
According to Wikipedia :
” As of 25 May 2009 the film’s worldwide box office total stands at $267,875,237.
:eek: Thats insane !!
Thats in less than a month !! I think its safe to say sequels are on the way :)
Posted on Wed, 27 May 2009 at 00:33
#33
Citizen Erased (confused again) wrote:
I think you’ve pretty much got a month to make serious money, then it all tails off dramatically until the DVD release.
And yes, Star Trek 2.0 II The-next-bit-of-the-second-version-of-the-first-generation will no doubt now have a green light.
And now to Terminator and Transformers…
Posted on Wed, 27 May 2009 at 08:47
#34
Cuchulain wrote:
Thought Star Trek was okay , nothing more nothing less. Only followed TNG when it was on though.
It is missing the Klingons though. And Colm Meaney !
Posted on Wed, 27 May 2009 at 09:37
#35
Squall wrote:
:p Would be hard to have Colm in it when hes not in it for another 80 years.
The writers of Star Trek have already started writing the sequel, which they hope to have out by Summer 2011. :)
Is it good that theyre starting so soon ? One one hand you could say they’re rushing it, while on the other hand, it means that they’re not going to
sit around watching the profits come in for 18 months then hastily write a follow up …
Posted on Wed, 27 May 2009 at 13:09
#36
Squall wrote:
PLUS I cant imagine what a sequal would be called.
Obviously they can’t call it Star Trek 2..
Posted on Wed, 27 May 2009 at 13:11
#37
Cuchulain wrote:
Posted on Wed, 27 May 2009 at 14:57
#38
Fiona (Fiona Lamont) wrote:
Star treking across the universe on the starship enterprise under Captain Kirk…anyone else remember this Spitting Imagine tune?? Or, am I one of the few old enough :-D
Posted on Wed, 27 May 2009 at 15:25
#39
Dennis (Dudley Less) wrote:
I do, but it wasn’t Spitting Image, it was by The Firm.
Posted on Wed, 27 May 2009 at 15:28
#40
Fiona (Fiona Lamont) wrote:
Oops :-o. Were there spitting image puppets in it??
Posted on Wed, 27 May 2009 at 15:31
#41
Dennis (Dudley Less) wrote:
Nah just plasticine type things, if memory serves.
Not that I remember, I am far too young….
*tries to get away with that one*
Posted on Wed, 27 May 2009 at 15:48
#42
Gav wrote:
“Always going forward, cause we cant find reverse”
Posted on Wed, 27 May 2009 at 18:21
#43
mrs h wrote:
Theeeeeeeeeeeeres Klingons on the Starboard Bow Starboard bow Starboard Bow …
I’ve got that somewhere.
*dies of shame*
Posted on Wed, 27 May 2009 at 19:05
#44
Squall wrote:
Wasnt it called in the pirkinning or something ?
Posted on Wed, 27 May 2009 at 21:01
#45
hoochalobster (Sarah) Super Moderator wrote:
I went to see Star Trek again tonight, even more awesome on the Imax screen. Love it love it love it :D
Posted on Wed, 27 May 2009 at 22:32
#46
KJC Dublin (Karl) wrote:
Just after finally getting to see this - even though I agree with some of the criticism above it did not put me off really enjoying this one.
Hope they manage to add a few more - Star Trek is reborn.
Posted on Sun, 31 May 2009 at 22:25
#47
CS (Colin S) wrote:
I’m pretty much with Grant’s review of the movie.
I have never watched a minute of Star Trek in my life, but the movie was class… sheer brilliance!
Posted on Sun, 31 May 2009 at 22:40
#48
Squall wrote:
Star Trek has so far made over $300 million worldwide, so it’s safe to say sequals are a certainty. :)
Posted on Mon, 1 June 2009 at 10:13
#49
Squall wrote:
Its up to £315 million now :p
Posted on Wed, 3 June 2009 at 22:03
#50
g (Does everything start with destruction?) wrote:
so will the next one be Star Trek XI-2
Posted on Wed, 3 June 2009 at 22:22
#51
Squall wrote:
I cant imagine.. :p
It obviously cant be Star Trek 2.
It might be Star Trek : <insert title>
Will be interesting to see what they come up with anyway.
Posted on Wed, 3 June 2009 at 22:23
#52
g (Does everything start with destruction?) wrote:
maybe they shouldnt have the word star trek in the name at all, just call it something like : Wrath of the clingons
Posted on Wed, 3 June 2009 at 22:35
#53
Citizen Erased (confused again) wrote:
Klingons with a K, clingons with a c is something different.
My guess is Star Trek <insert title>, I think Squall’s right.
Or else Star Trek: The next first generation 2.
Posted on Thu, 4 June 2009 at 08:27
#54
Squall wrote:
Star Trek : The Wrath of alternate, so entirely feasible and it worked first time.. Kahn
:p
Posted on Thu, 4 June 2009 at 13:54
#55
Squall wrote:
Also, JJ abrams is bored of Klingons so it wont be them, which is why they weren’t in the new movie. Theyve said that anything goes nwo it’s an alternate time line, even bringing back Shatner wouldnt be out of the question, as far as doing the unexpected goes..
I just hope its as good the current movie. The most i’ve enjoyed a Trek movie since Generations 15 years ago.
Posted on Thu, 4 June 2009 at 13:57
#56
Jobrok (John O)))) wrote:
Bringing Khan back into it is almost a certainty.
By far the best villain from the TV series and the movies.
I bet they were kicking themselves later on in the movie series that they killed off Khan.
Would have been deadly to have him pop up once in a while.
Plus with the whole new timeline business, Khan is still frozen in a capsule floating around space.
Can’t see him getting the ‘Killed Off’ treatment when they do bring his character back.
They could work it in to the next movie that they find the ship with Khan and the other enhanced humans, leaving it open for a third movie.
Posted on Thu, 4 June 2009 at 16:28
#57
Squall wrote:
Isn’t Kahn exiled on Ceti Alpha 5 ? Not floating around frozen like some kind of fish finger or chicken portion ? :P
Posted on Thu, 4 June 2009 at 17:05
#58
richey wrote:
No, that hasn’t happened yet in this story. The Enterprise finds them later and maroons them there in the original series.
Posted on Thu, 4 June 2009 at 17:42
#59
Squall wrote:
I guess so. I’ve never actually sen ” Space Seed “
Posted on Thu, 4 June 2009 at 17:55
#60
Squall wrote:
Posted on Thu, 4 June 2009 at 17:56
