×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Star Trek Sequel Already Planned

kdawson posted about 5 years ago | from the boldly-going-again dept.

Movies 213

bowman9991 writes "Paramount Pictures are so confident about the box office potential of the upcoming Star Trek reboot directed by J. J. Abrams that they're already working on a sequel. They've hired Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof to write the screenplay. We're looking at a possible 2011 release for the next Star Trek movie with the same cast. Now that they've committed themselves, let's hope it lives up to expectations."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

213 comments

It's dead, Jim (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27412549)

Let it lie.

Re:It's dead, Jim (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27412967)

Gee whiz. And to make matters worse, the Ship's bridge looks like a MacFag interior design orgy. Oh well, at least it isn't like Linux: boxy, gray and drab, Spock dolls with do-rags shoved up the crews' asses.

god, another? (3, Funny)

Niris (1443675) | about 5 years ago | (#27412551)

whats this going to be, movie 15 by now?

Re:god, another? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27412583)

What are you talking about? There only have been six films.

Re:god, another? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27412609)

Yes, ONLY six..

Re:god, another? (5, Funny)

WCLPeter (202497) | about 5 years ago | (#27412699)

Yes, only six. But which six?

For me Two, Three, Four, Six, and Eight were all pretty good and I would count them in my top six easily. But that leaves only one slot out of six left. Both One and Five are fairly, with Five being obviously worse than One. However One and Five can't hold a candle to the suck brought out by Seven, Nine and the bad, emotionally devoid, remake of Two that we call Ten.

Perhaps there really are only FIVE good Star Trek films?

Re:god, another? (4, Funny)

chimpo13 (471212) | about 5 years ago | (#27413073)

"Of Gods and Men" is pretty good, if you're a geek. Luckily, I'm a geek so I liked it. The sad thing is, I've been hosting a Peep Off, a Marshmallow Peep eating contest, for every fucking Star Trek movie there has been. I've been calling it "the last ever Peep Off" for a few years now and I'm sadly disappointed that there's another sequel coming. Please make it stop!

http://www.nokilli.com/food/peep.html [nokilli.com]

Re:god, another? (4, Funny)

rouge86 (608370) | about 5 years ago | (#27412691)

I suggest a quick recount of those films [wikipedia.org]. Last time I counted my collection, I saw ten films. No amount of Cardasian trickery and torture will make me see just six.

Re:god, another? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27412887)

If you watch all ten, you'll wish you'd only seen six.

Please (2, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | about 5 years ago | (#27412555)

Please tell me this is the start of April Fool's Day. The new movie looks like it's totally disrespecting the source material (seriously, the trailer made it look like a mindless sex-and-violence movie)... I'd rather not see more like that.

Re:Please (4, Informative)

spiffyman (949476) | about 5 years ago | (#27412607)

Doesn't seem too likely. TFA was written "Yesterday," and it likely references this article [variety.com], which was written March 30.

Sorry to disappoint.

Re:Please (1)

eltaco (1311561) | about 5 years ago | (#27413625)

that's part of the setup nowadays though, isn't it? everyone chants "OMG APRIL FOOLS!", but in the article's defense it was posted 1-2 days earlier. also, that's sorta the time-frame virals need to spread around to become known.

hell, I hope I don't eat my words later, but I agree, it seems legit this time.

Re:Please (2, Funny)

bonch (38532) | about 5 years ago | (#27412851)

Another fucking sequel.

Hollywood is on its way out.

Re:Please (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | about 5 years ago | (#27412867)

I don't mind sequels, really, as long as there's something there, some more story to be told. A sequel to a movie which is already a bad take on an existing franchise... that just has no potential at all.

Re:Please (5, Insightful)

Phroggy (441) | about 5 years ago | (#27412985)

Please tell me this is the start of April Fool's Day. The new movie looks like it's totally disrespecting the source material (seriously, the trailer made it look like a mindless sex-and-violence movie)... I'd rather not see more like that.

You know, if they made a really great Star Trek movie that was totally true to everything we hold dear... the best thing they could do is make the trailers for it look like a mindless sex-and-violence movie, to ensure box office success. I'm not saying that's the case here, just saying... when was the last time you heard someone comment about how accurate a trailer was?

Re:Please (1)

paganizer (566360) | about 5 years ago | (#27413347)

Damn. That really is insightful.
But, perceive for a moment, my problem: I grew up in extremely rural southern Illinois; while I have vague recollections of watching ST on my parents Black and white TV during first run (I was 6 or so), I didn't really get into it until I was 14. I purchased a ungodly large UHF antenna so I could pick up the broadcasts from st. Louis; I bought all the James Blish novelizations. I bought, frankly everything there was, sometimes 2, like the technical blueprints; there was a time, and I'm not kidding here, that you could put me at any spot in the NCC-1701 and I could tell you exactly where I was; I could identify any episode from 5 random seconds of dialogue.
I grew up, kinda. got a life, jobs, kids, etc. I thought Next Generation was sad, and pussified, but still watched it. I stopped buying stuff. I can no longer even tell you the writers of some of the episodes.
The movie, for me, is going to suck. there is no way it can NOT suck. it's anti-canon. No one on this or any other planet can possibly bring to Kirk what Shatner brought to Kirk. The only way I would ever possibly enjoy the premise of this movie is CGI or animation, because it's just farking impossible to do Star Trek with different actors correctly.

Re:Please (1)

SerpentMage (13390) | about 5 years ago | (#27413823)

Or they could just make the movie for the mindless sex-and-violence crowd...

Come on... Spock and emotions with women? Yeah that will fit well into the overall scheme of things.

So the director is a producer, directory, and writer from? Lost, Alias?

Look I happen to be a huge Lost fan, but Lost is a fantasy, not scifi! Or it is that new age goo that people call scifi mixed in with a whole bunch of make believe garbage.

I think that this is what Star Trek has become FANTASY that tries to pass off as SciFi...

Re:Please (4, Funny)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 5 years ago | (#27413349)

Please tell me this is the start of April Fool's Day. The new movie looks like it's totally disrespecting the source material (seriously, the trailer made it look like a mindless sex-and-violence movie)... I'd rather not see more like that.

Erm did you ever see the original series in it's original late night spot???

Mindless sex and violence was what I remember but hey at least it was in space:)

Re:Please (1)

SerpentMage (13390) | about 5 years ago | (#27413771)

Of the little that I have seen through the trailers I thought the exact SAME THING...

I thought, oh god not yet another movie that targets this "reality TV" generation. What I always liked about Star Trek is that they always tried to put some techy stuff into the overall scheme of things. They tried to answer or provoke some question.

For example with Star Trek 1 it was women and aliens... Ohhh they could even be NORMAL...

Star Trek NG... Ohhh robots can intermingle with HUMANS...

Star Trek DS9... Ohhh sometimes humans have to HUMANS...

Star Trek Voyager??? Well sort of bouncing around to survive, granted this one was entertainment more than anything. And some would argue bad entertainment...

Star Trek Enterprise: YAWN...

So when I see these trailers all I can think of is, "wow Star Trek is dead... "

to boldly go (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27412561)

where every other franchise screwing leech has gone before.

April Fool's (5, Insightful)

gmhowell (26755) | about 5 years ago | (#27412565)

Has to be April Fool's Day for anyone to think an odd numbered Trek won't suck. OMG Poniez!

Re:April Fool's (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27412685)

10 is even. Nemesis sucked.

Re:April Fool's (5, Funny)

lordholm (649770) | about 5 years ago | (#27412749)

I disagree, Nemesis was a very good movie. I really dont get it why people dislike the movie.

Yes, it was very dark and not the normal Trek, but it was still good and explored some interesting questions (i.e. who am I, what is a person?).

Re:April Fool's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27412799)

The reason why Nemesis was so thoroughly panned was because it lacked originality - it blatantly recycled major plot elements from past Trek films (mainly Treks II, III and VI). Recycling - it's great for bottles and cans, but not so good when it comes to stories and films.

Re:April Fool's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27412883)

Maybe if they put freckles on Spock...

Re:April Fool's (1)

Socguy (933973) | about 5 years ago | (#27412787)

Has to be April Fool's Day for anyone to think an odd numbered Trek won't suck. OMG Poniez!

Duh, that's why they need to start the sequel right away. They need to get this forthcoming abomination out of the way so that they can cash in on the even numbered awesomeness!

Re:April Fool's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27413391)

Has to be April Fool's Day for anyone to think anything connected to Shatner won't suck. OMG Khaaniez!

Star Trek Reloaded? (4, Insightful)

Darkk (1296127) | about 5 years ago | (#27412567)

Problem is the new Star Trek movie is too much like Fast and Fury which won't be appealing to older audience. Young audience might like it but I think the movie overall will fail.

Re:Star Trek Reloaded? (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | about 5 years ago | (#27412673)

I saw Fast and Furry on pay per view... Totally not work the money man.

Re:Star Trek Reloaded? (2, Funny)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about 5 years ago | (#27413343)

Yeah, and you lost poor Jacqui her job. Still, she was on the fiddle and had to go, would you mind seeing to the rest of them too? You can have all the pr0n you want.

Re:Star Trek Reloaded? (5, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about 5 years ago | (#27412865)

Hm. What are you, 12? It's not possible for a Trek movie to fail. It won't win an Oscar but they're not supposed to. It can't do that and fulfill Roddenberry's vision for social change through fantasy.

Not one Trek movie has ever failed to get more box office than its production cost [the-numbers.com], let alone before you figure DVD sales and merchandising. Nemesis came close but over the history of the franchise they're running 2:1 just in box. With a Costneresque budget on Trek XI they're doing their best to see if they can spend more than any box office can handle and it might just happen, but net of DVDs and books and merch the movie will make money. Old jerks like me will still drag their kids out to see it no matter how much they don't want to. We'll buy the new lightsabers for birthday gifts and the scale models for Christmas, the desk calendars and action figures and hundreds of cobranded happy meals with the cheesy Chinese lead-based toy. We'll do it because we're struggling to connect our spoiled brats with the hopeful social message of yesteryear when you didn't know the doomed guy's shirt was red because the TV was black and white. As a side effect we'll perpetuate the exploitation of a franchise that's gradually losing the vision of its creator, but hey -- that's what memes and pop culture are about.

One day my kids will be dragging their kids to Trek films. They won't know why and the films won't contain anything that makes the endeavor worthwhile. Perhaps the tradition will die with that generation. In the meantime the landfill is going to see billions of those happy meal toys. Hollywood is going to try to milk this one long after it's dry because they ran out of new ideas 15 years ago if they ever had any.

Let me condition that: If Sony buys the franchise from Viacom/Paramount it's over in one movie flat. Sony just doesn't get it and they never will.

Re:Star Trek Reloaded? (1)

Darkk (1296127) | about 5 years ago | (#27412939)

Dragging their kids to the movies?

Is this like brainwashing?

Re:Star Trek Reloaded? (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 5 years ago | (#27413039)

Is this like brainwashing?

Yes. Do You have a problem with parents guiding the development of their offspring? That would make you avante-garde for the 1984 movement.

Re:Star Trek Reloaded? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27413099)

I think that expecting a movie to fail because it's too popular with young people and not appealing to old people, suggests you don't understand where Hollywood gets all its money from. (Not that I agree with your other statements.)

Confidence? (4, Insightful)

tpgp (48001) | about 5 years ago | (#27412569)

Star Trek will always do well at the box office; there's enough die hard trekkies that will go & watch regardless of quality.

Paramount would have been planning another feature even if they were confident this trek was going to bomb.

Re:Confidence? (4, Funny)

tcolberg (998885) | about 5 years ago | (#27412689)

What the hell!? They had to leave the field lie fallow for five years because they had squeezed every last ounce of creativity out of the last production team working on Trek. Now the comeback movie hasn't even been released yet and they're already back to raping the land for all it's worth.

Re:Confidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27412717)

People watched Nemesis and Enterprise, so yes, I agree with the parent post.

Re:Confidence? (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about 5 years ago | (#27412737)

Star Trek will always do well at the box office; there's enough die hard trekkies that will go & watch regardless of quality.

I never watched one in the theatre (haven't watched that many at all, actually) even though I lived through some trailers of them over a while.

I don't know what it is, but this one actually seems compelling. Perhaps it's just because there doesn't seem to be anything worth watching until May when this and then T4 comes out, but I'm plannng on seeing it.

Will ALWAYS do well? (4, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | about 5 years ago | (#27412869)

Star Trek will always do well at the box office; there's enough die hard trekkies that will go & watch regardless of quality

Then why was Nemesis a total failure?

No, real Trek fans are feeling burned out too, and are tired of Paramount 'effing up the franchise with trash like Enterprise. And while the trailers look exciting in some regards, I have no hope that JJ Abrams will make a real Star Trek movie, just another "shiny box" movie with Star Trek characters.

Re:Will ALWAYS do well? (1)

feepness (543479) | about 5 years ago | (#27413489)

No, real Trek fans are feeling burned out too, and are tired of Paramount 'effing up the franchise with trash like Enterprise.

Enterprise actually picked up well in the last season. I was sad to see it go.

TNG started out pretty craptastic too. I think Enterprise just got too aggressive too fast with big storylines.

Re:Will ALWAYS do well? (0)

bhunachchicken (834243) | about 5 years ago | (#27413873)

Then why was Nemesis a total failure?

I'll tell you why I didn't like it: nothing happened! The tag line for the film was "A Generation's Final Journey... Begins" and on the poster we have a sinister looking Shinzon clutching a knife. Now, seriously, given those two things am I so wrong as to believe that all (or a lot) of the cast and characters would be bumped off over the course of the movie as they tried to tackle some great evil?

It's not an unreasonable expectation, is it?

But no. Instead we get the usual bloody nice and fluffy Star Trek where fuck all happens and you never feel the characters are in mortal danger or are in fear of their lives. I mean, technically Data didn't even die!

Having said that, I'm going to go and see the new film, in the hope it is a little edgier and gritter than past movies.

Re:Confidence? (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 5 years ago | (#27412915)

Star Trek will always do well at the box office; there's enough die hard trekkies that will go & watch regardless of quality.

I'll agree - unless Paramount sells the franchise to Sony. I'll bet Sony could kill even this. They are that bad.

Here's to hope... (2)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 5 years ago | (#27412571)

....hope that J.J. Abrams and friends don't screw up Star Trek. Because it sounds like they have been given carte blanche over the franchise for the time being.

RIP Gene Roddenberry.

Re:Here's to hope... (1)

Darkk (1296127) | about 5 years ago | (#27412613)

I think Gene Roddenberry will haunt Abrams if he really screwed it up which I think he will since the latest movie is totally different from what we're used to seeing for the past 20 years.

Re:Here's to hope... (1)

N1AK (864906) | about 5 years ago | (#27413327)

I think Gene Roddenberry will haunt Abrams if he really screwed it up which I think he will since the latest movie is totally different from what we're used to seeing for the past 20 years.

What we are used to seeing for the last 20 years includes a hell of a lot of crap. Frankly the last thing I want is another film anything like the last two. JJ Abrams could well of created something terrible with Star Trek, but I don't think the trailer is proof of that.

Re:Here's to hope... (3, Interesting)

iced_773 (857608) | about 5 years ago | (#27412721)

J.J. Abrams. Damon Lindelof. LOST. Need I say more?

Nemesis and Enterprise made me want to abandon Star Trek altogether (actually should have even earlier). But having seen who's working on this one, and being a huge Lost fan, I'm actually excited.

I still can't imagine Sylar as Spock, though...

Re:Here's to hope... (3, Funny)

f2x (1168695) | about 5 years ago | (#27412925)

No, no... You're missing the big picture. With both Roddenberry and Barrett passed on, the vacuum energy created by the suction of this next release should set their final remains into a "Hyper-spin". This in turn will induce a casimir effect so we can create the first stable worm hole. Since only parts of their remains are being launched into space, this will allow one end of the wormhole to remain on earth while the other extends deep into outer space allowing us travel to the stars at a fraction of the cost needed to produce nanotube beanstalks.

See? It's absolutely brilliant!

What! No ponies??!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27412585)

It's April 1st after all.

Star Wars > Star Trek (1, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 5 years ago | (#27412587)

Though I'll admit that Trekkies are probably better than Furries.

Re:Star Wars Star Trek (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27412681)

Star Trek and Star Wars do have one unfortunate thing in common. Each series is under assault by their own creators who fail to understand what it is that made them good in the first place.

Re:Star Wars Star Trek (5, Informative)

gmhowell (26755) | about 5 years ago | (#27412741)

Star Trek's creator is dead. Paramount is no more the 'creator' of Star Trek than the RIAA (or member company) is a recording artist.

The Reboot (1)

Toonol (1057698) | about 5 years ago | (#27412603)

In fairness, this movie does not have to be that good to be better than a number of the Star Trek movies. Their quality has been... inconsistent, at best. I'm skeptical, but I'll give it a chance.

After all, this is supposed to be modeled after the original series, which (while cerebral) also had a good share of fist-fighting and babes. More than any of the later series did, I think, at least considering the time it was aired.

Re:The Reboot (2, Interesting)

dbcad7 (771464) | about 5 years ago | (#27412809)

Personally, I would be more enthused if they did something totally different. I really have little interest in the origins of Kirk and Spock.. and I didn't care for the Enterprise series either.. I think maybe it's just the Next Gen, Voyager, DS9 series where more interesting to me, and trying to go back to the hokey past series.. is just hokey... It's like trying to remake the Dukes of Hazard.. you got to say, sure you can do it.. and probably explore different angles.. but why ?

Re:The Reboot (1)

sdnoob (917382) | about 5 years ago | (#27412949)

... this movie does not have to be that good to be better than a number of the Star Trek movies ...

The new Trek movie could be "Gigli in Space" and still be better than at least one of them [wikipedia.org]

Aprilfoolsday is better served cold (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 5 years ago | (#27412615)

Is not a good day for serious announcements, so... then they DONT plan to make a sequel? What happens in the 1st one, all die? Or they are already covering their backs from the wrath of the fans if this one flops saying "next one will be good, we promise".

Pizza? (4, Insightful)

mcrbids (148650) | about 5 years ago | (#27412629)

To paraphrase Garth Brooks....

"Star Trek is like a pizza: When it's good, it's just great. But even when it's bad, it's still pretty good!"

I'm not the type to wear blue face paint, stick pointy ears on, or know the Klingon alphabet. But I've seen every single Trek movie. I've watched all the shows, time permitting. I even endured 'Enterprise'.

Seriously, making money at a Trek show is like shooting fish in a barrel without water in it. There's a HUGE fanbase of nerds like me who dig it and make enough money to matter.

All it has to do is not actually suck bad enough to cause migraines and it will profit!

Re:Pizza? (1)

largesnike (762544) | about 5 years ago | (#27412829)

I'm not the type to wear blue face paint, stick pointy ears on, or know the Klingon alphabet. But I've seen every single Trek movie. I've watched all the shows, time permitting. I even endured 'Enterprise'.

wow...so you're the next level. I just couldn't take Enterprise, it actually physically hurt.

Re:Pizza? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27413219)

wow...so you're the next level. I just couldn't take Enterprise, it actually physically hurt.

I'm afraid that wasn't Enterprise.

I'm sorry you have to find out like this, but... you have cancer and it's metastasized to your lungs and brain. You have six weeks to live.

We'll do all we can to make you comfortable in the time you have left.

Re:Pizza? (1)

acehole (174372) | about 5 years ago | (#27413237)

"I even endured 'Enterprise'."

Much the same way I can endure water boarding. Not much difference really.

Re:Pizza? (1)

SupremoMan (912191) | about 5 years ago | (#27413431)

So people don't like Enterprise? Thank God, I thought I was the only one! You don't know what it's been like, the guilt, the fear of being exposed and shamed. I am a StarTrek fan, but I could not stomach that show!

Re:Pizza? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27413501)

I liked Enterprise. I think it's better than Voyager, or even TNG. For me, TNG really lacks credibility ... I mean they have the best f*cking ship in the known universe and they get their ass kicked by pretty much everyone.

Re:Pizza? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27413569)

Agreed. Enterprise is the only star trek i liked! TNG and voyager was watchable but could hardly be described as good or interesting (a few episodes are the exceptions).
Posting anonymous for obvious reasons

saw the trailer on the IMAX (1)

Archfeld (6757) | about 5 years ago | (#27412733)

while catching the Watchmen...Eh...I decided right then to save a few $'s and see Star Trek on the small screen.

Re:saw the trailer on the IMAX (4, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 5 years ago | (#27412843)

I decided right then to save a few $'s and see Star Trek on the small screen.

Great idea.

That way, when it becomes unbearable, you can simply close the phone.

Remind me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27412797)

I can't remember if this will be even or odd numbered.. Which is it?

Being Directed By (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27412875)

The great Uwe Boll!!! You heard it here first folks.

April Tools! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27412877)

No joke these [tecratools.com] are the coolest tools [debian-hardened.org] I've ever seen.

EFF star anything (0, Flamebait)

wintermute000 (928348) | about 5 years ago | (#27413087)

Star wars.
Star trek.

Two of the biggest ball and chains any geek has had to live with even if they never consented to being tarred with the same brush as all the Star X fans.

I hope the franchises die an awful death. Having some of their diehard nut fans meet the same fate would also do wonders for our cred. The only good thing about those shows is that it forms the basis for comic-book-guy's character. Oh yeah, and "Luke be a jedi toniiiiiight"......

Gayest shows ever (yes flame me please, its slashdot and "I'm not new here")

final nitpick: Star wars is not sci fi. Its a adolescent boy fantasy except with blasters and hyperspace instead of sword and sorcery. Ooh I am cruisin for a flamewar

Re:EFF star anything (1)

teebob21 (947095) | about 5 years ago | (#27413201)

You, sir, may be trolling for some epic battle of 'teh flames' but your points are valid. Star Wars had the makings of an epic tale, if only G-Lucas could have contrived a coherent delivery. In its current form, it's been nothing more than the wet dream of a DND Magic Missile D20...with blasters and midichlori-something-or-others in the end.

A series is needed, not movies. (4, Insightful)

master_p (608214) | about 5 years ago | (#27413107)

A series allows the development of characters and story in much greater detail than movies allow. And Star Trek is special because of the details.

Star Trek became an important aspect of today's (sub) culture due to the series (TOS, TNG, DS9 etc). The movies aren't so important.

Uh Oh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27413165)

Hollywood is producing nuclear weapons...

What's in a name? (1)

OMGcAPSLOCK (1507399) | about 5 years ago | (#27413511)

You guys piss and moan all you like. Personally, I can't wait to watch James Siberius Kirk getting into a punch-up with an angsty emo-Spock on the bridge of the Enterprise. Luckily they got somebody with the integrity and credibility of JJ Abrams to steer the good ship Trek this time round, and not some opportunistic, over the top Hollywood schmoozer who thinks all you need is a couple of badly thought out twists and a sackful of explosions to make a decent movie....

Living up to expectation (2, Insightful)

glwtta (532858) | about 5 years ago | (#27413819)

My expectations are that it's going to be a pile of utter shite - should I still be hoping that it lives up to that?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...