Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Star Trek 3 news


Your Creeper Cabbie

Recommended Posts

Not much at this point. Just trying to find a new director since J.J. Abrams is leaving for some other never heard of movie series...

 

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1716748/star-trek-3-joe-cornish.jhtml

 

 

Lately, good news for "Star Wars" fans has meant bad news for Trekkies. For example, when J.J. Abrams signed on to direct "Episode VII," it seemed inevitable that he would relinquish his helming duties on a third "Trek," but a new report from Deadline could spell very good news for those faithful to the Starship Enterprise.

According to the site, Joe Cornish is Paramount's pick to replace Abrams for the untitled third film in the rebooted "Star Trek" series or, as we're calling it, "Star Trek Into Even More Darkness."

 

What's interesting about that pick is that Cornish has directed only one movie, the stellar "Attack the Block," but his name has been tied to a bundle of other exciting projects, mostly in association with his friend Edgar Wright.

Cornish and Wright wrote Steven Spielberg's "The Adventures of Tintin" along with "Sherlock" scribe Steven Moffa. And the duo have teamed up again for "Ant-Man," Wright's next directorial effort and the Marvel Studios movie scheduled to immediately proceed "Avengers: Age of Ultron." If that wasn't enough geek cred for one man, Cornish also been working on presenting an adaptation of the science-fiction classic by Neal Stephenson, "Snow Crash," to Paramount.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

http://www.slashfilm.com/joe-cornish-wont-direct-star-trek-3/#more-206732

 

After directing two Star Trek movies, J.J. Abrams took himself out of the running to direct the third by accepting the Star Wars Episode VII gig instead. Ever since then, one of the big questions surrounding Star Trek 3 has been who who would take his place.

As of last month, Joe Cornish, director of Attack the Block and co-writer of Ant-Man, was said to be the favorite. However, a new report indicates that he’s no longer involved, either. Hit the jump for details.

Variety slipped the update into a larger article about the hiring of relative newbies J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay to help write Star Trek 3. According to their sources, while Cornish was indeed in talks with Paramount and Skydance at one point, he is “no longer involved” with the production.

Additionally, there’s no word yet on whom else Paramount has in mind. But a decision can’t be too far off. Though the studio has not yet announced a start date, we heard last month that they were hoping to shoot in 2014 so the film could be ready in time for the franchise’s 50th anniversary in 2016.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you couldn't base a whole movie around him, but I'd love to see them use the character of Harry Mudd in a subplot or something.

 

Beyond that, maybe a big budget treatment of the Gary Mitchell story, or an expansion of one of the better episodes ("Let that be your last battlefield" would be a good one, and timely).

 

I'm not that big a fan of this rebooted universe, but that's some stuff I'd watch.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you couldn't base a whole movie around him, but I'd love to see them use the character of Harry Mudd in a subplot or something.

 

Beyond that, maybe a big budget treatment of the Gary Mitchell story, or an expansion of one of the better episodes ("Let that be your last battlefield" would be a good one, and timely).

 

I'm not that big a fan of this rebooted universe, but that's some stuff I'd watch.

 

They want to do 5 movies with this cast. I really think they need a couple of new stories for now, maybe with a new enemy only a part of this timeline. But I would like to see at the end of the forth one a teaser of The Doomsday Machine.

 

There has been no mention of Gary Mitchell, so they can twist it that Kirk and Mitchell never met before.

 

My only problem with Mudd is they will probably get Jonah Hill to play the part...

 

 

I like the new timeline, gives us the original characters with new stories, but they do need to be careful with changing to much..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I know you couldn't base a whole movie around him, but I'd love to see them use the character of Harry Mudd in a subplot or something.

 

I read a comic based on the new timeline and they have made Mudd....a woman!

 

 

And it looks like they will be going in a whole new direction for 3

 

http://www.slashfilm.com/star-trek-3-orci-comments/

 

Expect Star Trek 3 to boldly go where J.J. Abrams‘ earlier Star Trek movies did not. In a new interview, director Roberto Orci promised Star Trek 3 would take Kirk and his crew into deep space, in contrast to the Earth-centric storylines of the last two installments. And naturally, that means the team is about to encounter some new kinds of aliens

In [into Darkness] they set out finally where the original series started. The first two films – especially the 2009 [star Trek] – was an origin story. It was about them coming together. So they weren’t the characters they were in the original series. They were growing into them and that continues on in the second movie. So in this movie they are closer than they are to the original series characters than you have ever seen. They have set off on their five-year mission. So their adventure is going to be in deep space.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...