>Would you watch a Christopher Nola-

No.

>>217345986
no. star trek is about the story and nolan is a horrible at telling stories

>>217346013
Lemmieasquesumthin.

>>217346023
We're talking multi-Grammy winning director.

too much exposition
too many plotholes
too cold souless bland
pretending to smart plot
flashbacks out of order unreliable narrator
bland blue grey visuals
power rangers costumes
terrible female characters
can't hear the dialog
poorly shot action scenes
nothing is storyboarded
only does one take
no CGI at all

>>217345986
no, i'm not into star trek and it doesnt seem like the kind of thing that would suit nolan

Fuck no.

>>217346688
>terrible female characters
>no CGI at all
Based.

>>217345986
No. Star Trek needs to be low budget junk to be good and Nolan only does big budget blockbusters for dummies.

>>217345986
would I WANT a Christopher Nolan star trek trilogoy? No
Would I WATCH a Nolan star trek trilogy at home if it existed? Yes

>>217346040
>Grammy

>>217345986
No, just because he'd do it better than Abrams doesn't mean that it should exist.

>>217347888
Imagine Tom Hardy as a Star Trek villain.

>>217345986
He does hard sci-fi and star trek is soft sci-fi, the tonal shift would be a disaster

>>217345986
>Would you watch a Christopher Nolan Star Trek trilogy
Yeah sure it could be mildly interesti-
>if he got full creative control?
God no, the man is a retard