Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Sci-Fi Entertainment

"Star Trek 3" To Be Helmed By "Fast & Furious" Franchise Director Justin Lin 332

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @01:12PM (#48661171)

    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @01:23PM (#48661271)

      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.

      • by Jeff Flanagan ( 2981883 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @01:37PM (#48661415)

        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.

        • When all you want is candy (empty quick-fix sugar rush), everything else tastes bland; so you keep eating candy. Without question, most TV and Hollywood production in the last 10+ years is vapid crap!

      • by allquixotic ( 1659805 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @01:42PM (#48661455)

        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.

        • by ravenscar ( 1662985 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @01:57PM (#48661549)

          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.

          • 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...

            • by ArcherB ( 796902 )

              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 wer

              • 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.

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

          I've been rewatching TNG. It holds up very well, and is actually much better than I remembered it. This is another option for people who want to watch some real Star Trek instead of these action reboots.
        • by flappinbooger ( 574405 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @02:46PM (#48662001) Homepage

          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?

          • by itzly ( 3699663 )
            A society with just good guys isn't evolutionary stable, so yes, there must be bad guys or genetic manipulation.
          • by allquixotic ( 1659805 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @03:05PM (#48662187)

            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.

      • i believe i will call you jaded hipster is rose-colored glasses

        look at my art, see what i've made.

      • 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

    • It might be that movies that don't have a lot of action are now unmarketable to the mainstream. I've been watching a lot of older films and TV lately, and the difference is remarkable. People used to go for media that contained clever ideas, and intelligent conversations. This has radically changed. A big part of this is Hollywood's fault, but the sadly public went along with this change to mindless action and fast-moving CGI. There's still plenty of material from before this change to keep anyone ente
      • by war4peace ( 1628283 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @01:44PM (#48661465)

        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.

        • Nice. I'm happy to hear this about your young friend. Of course not all people turned into idiots, but they seem to be Hollywood's market.

          I also enjoy action movies in addition to smarter stuff; They look and sound pretty intense in my home theater. What I object to is the dumbing down of once-smart franchises.
    • by halivar ( 535827 )

      The guy that gave us the silliest, other-the-top fisticuffs scenes ever filmed, betrayed? I'll get over it.

      • The fight scenes in Trek were hilarious, but it was a really smart, very progressive show for its time. You should look at it in the context of the time it was made.
    • 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.

  • Shift! (Score:5, Funny)

    by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @01:12PM (#48661179) Journal

    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?

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

    • 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.

      that would be totally amazing, to be honest,

    • Re:Shift! (Score:5, Funny)

      by sconeu ( 64226 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @02:34PM (#48661899) Homepage Journal

      Star Trek 3: Romulan Drift

  • by Trepidity ( 597 ) <delirium-slashdo ... g ['ack' in gap]> on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @01:12PM (#48661181)

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

  • What a nightmare (Score:4, Interesting)

    by endus ( 698588 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @01:19PM (#48661223)

    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.

    • 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/

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Shakrai ( 717556 )

        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.

        • Re:What a nightmare (Score:4, Informative)

          by afidel ( 530433 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @01:44PM (#48661469)

          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 [boxofficemojo.com].

          • Only because its was so long since the last ST movie. I didn't min them but I personally got more out of First Contact and getting more into the Borg of things. Now a short series on the Borg and their side would be cool.

            • Voyager tried to bring in more of the Borg side of things..... tried. There was also that campy interactive movie game too.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by halivar ( 535827 )

      the message of every previous Star Trek in favor of everything superficial and minor that has ever been in the series

      I'm sensing that your Star Trek experience begins with ST:TNG Season 1 and ends with ST:DS9 Season 6, and includes none of the movies.

      It's camp. It's always been camp. It will always be camp.

    • by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @01:54PM (#48661527) Homepage

      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.

    • Wish I could mod you up. I agree with your assessment that the 2 movies were good movies IFF they changed the names of the characters and the Title of the movie. So make it Star Ship Battles - "The Search for MORE Money" starring Capt Krush, First Officer Shock, etc. and it would have been a playful, satirical bash of Star Trek much like Galaxy Quest with Tim Allen, Sigourney Weaver, etc.

      Instead we have a "Star Trek" universe that JJ has TOTALLY F*&*ed up where people can use the transporter to get anyw

      • I don't know if JJ can do worse than Old George did with E1 through E3,

        Well, Lucas stuck around for all three movies. JJ is going to make two movies, realize he screwed up the setup so there cannot be a satisfactory conclusion, walk away, and blame the next director for fucking up his trilogy.

        At least Lin has experience keeping a franchise going.

  • by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @01:20PM (#48661239)

    And even more lens flare?

  • Waste of Time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Java Commando ( 726093 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @01:23PM (#48661273)

    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.

    • I never have a goddamned moderator point when I really need one. You'd get it..."Insightful" or "Informative", not sure which.

    • by 0123456 ( 636235 )

      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.

      • Nothing wrong with that, if you approach the movies without high expectations. After all, they're obviously made as offerings to the great dollar sign.

    • by ADRA ( 37398 )

      No, they're cookie cutter sci-fi plots which could've been perfectly viable on their own under a different handle, but instead they legerage their name and eliminated the entire multi-generation build-up for Star Trek (though admintedly pretty bad in the last 90's/00's). After the first reboot, I gave up on it entirely.

      I see the next epic sellout to be Terminator. Arnold has single handedly ruined that franchise by continually being the pivotal character who's relevance was spent after the second edition. T

  • Wonderful. Two directors in a row that want to turn it into a soap opera and have no respect for the series or its style or history. Get ready for another Dragonball Z the live action movie.
  • by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @01:30PM (#48661339) Homepage Journal

    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 [dresdencodak.com] 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 [youtube.com].

    • by 0123456 ( 636235 )

      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.

    • Man of Steel sucked. Even the ponderous Superman Returns was better. Hell, Superman IV was better.

  • ... hello "RAMMING SPEED!"

    Frankly, I wish they would go back to the core Star Trek TV values:

    1) Duplicate an earth culture on another planet.

    2) Have zero contact with Earth, letting Kirk do whatever he wants.

    3) Make some kind of social commentary relevant to today that will seem weird 10 years from now.

    4) If possible have someone claim to be a God, or demonstrate godlike abilities. Apollo was done already, so lets go with maybe Thor?

  • 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 the_skywise ( 189793 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @01:50PM (#48661503)

    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."

  • 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
    • Wish I could mod you up with Funny or Insightful.

      You forgot one thing though, Kirk would have a Transporter Bomb (TBomb) sent to the engine room of the Bird of Prey at the last minute when it looks like the Enterprise will not win the IntraGalactic drag race.

  • I saw both of Abrams' Star Trek movies in the theatre. I didn't think the lens flare was that big of a deal. I didn't think it really added much to it, but I wasn't bothered by it either. Yet here again I see people complaining endlessly about it as if the lens flare was to Star Trek what Jar-Jar Binks was to The Phantom Menace.
    • by Skater ( 41976 )
      I don't recall noticing lens flares in either movie. But that might be because I went to be entertained for two hours or whatever, not to nitpick the movies apart because they don't match my exact definition of what Star Trek should or shouldn't be.
  • Heist + Star Trek == ???

    I am intrigued.

  • Francises/sequels: 4
    New movie projects: 0

  • How about a whole new story line without all the throw backs to previous Star Trek movies?

    ST:Into Darkness, I'm looking at you, way too many "homages" to Wrath of Khan...

  • by steelfood ( 895457 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @02:46PM (#48661995)

    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...

When a fellow says, "It ain't the money but the principle of the thing," it's the money. -- Kim Hubbard

Working...