star trek:into darkness (WARNING: SPOILERS as of 4/23/13)

Re: star trek:into darkness

Sci-fi has been nerd-porn since the old pulp-mag days that inspired Trek.
It's a fine and proud tradition.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Nah. Not buying that. One name, dude.

William. Ware. Theiss.

Star Trek has always had something for the teenage boy demographic, starting with the Orion Animal Woman in "The Cage."

What we're noticing here isn't that Star Trek is going for that demographic so much as that it stopped going for any other demographics.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Sooo....

piecing together what we know....

early on Kirk and crew are monking around with the volcano situation...

Kirk reportedly puts his ass in the sling regarding the PD by rescuing Spock

At some point Harrison fucks with the Klingons and kirk takes it upon himself to go bring him back (possibly after having been disciplined and losing his position (which might contribute to the use of a civilian ship?)

Kirk captures, then loses, Harrison (possibly Harrison allowed himself to be captured in order to be transported back to Earth?)

Harrison attacks London

Starfleet brass meets to discuss what to do about him, he attacks again, kirk wants to go after him andis denied, does it anyway

action ensues.

Sound about right?

Re: star trek:into darkness

Methinks Harrison's character is a Klingon in disguise.

There's a shot that shows Harrison kicking ass while Kirk and Scotty stand idly by in the background, indicating that--at some point--Harrison is working with them.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Not at all. The first 30 or so minutes were shown at a screening and it plays out quite different than that. It's all over the internets if you google it.

Re: star trek:into darkness

it's actually an interesting point. Enterprise pretty much made it crystal clear that the Smoothies were a result of the events depicted on that show....and yet, it's a certainty that if we see any Klingons in Abrams'verse that they will be bumpies.

so i assume we're going to have to ret-con the new continuity to explain that the Klingons solved their smoothness problem several decades earlier in this verse than in the other one.

Re: star trek:into darkness

couple of random thoughts....

IF the killed and resurrected the Big E - the next one would be an updated take in the "refit" from TMP, in my view, not a throwback - albeit from a real-world view, it would make little sense since"Star Trek"kind of overtly implied that this one is the latest and greatest design.

Also...

I, for one, would love it if we saw an antagonistic Klingon who turned out to be Kor or Kang.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Nope.

Here is a summary of the first half-hour or so of the film. Be warned: spoilers (no big reveals, but it does give you some of the main ideas in the plot)

Unless something VERY convoluted is going on here, I think we can rule out Cumberbatch being Khan or Mitchell.

I will call you gay. Others covered this quite nicely, but are we to believe that you aren't familiar with the 60s sci-fi fantasy TV show called Star Trek? Let me guess, TNG was your intro to that universe?

Re: star trek:into darkness

To complain about Marcus in her underwear is stupid. They are obviously changing and in a hurry too. And she looks annoyed with Kirk.

I do wonder if she's related to Admiral Marcus.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Even if it was, that's still a damned flimsy excuse. Who here thinks Troi wasn't eye candy whose primary role on the show was tits and "Paaaaaiiinnnnn..."? Or episodes like:



Or damn near every scene with passersby that was set on Risa?

Re: star trek:into darkness

TNG was still gay because the guys still show more skin.

And it featured Will Wheaton.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Regarding Klingons & whatnot, it's important to keep in mind ENT, regardless of our varied & diverse opinions & views of it, is in BOTH the pasts of the Roddenberry AND Abrams Trekverses. At the time of ENT it was all still ONE universe.

Then obviously, as we've all known for ~4 years now, Captain Obvious came through the black hole from the post-NEM 24th Century to 2233, splitting the universe in two, resulting in the spliced off parallel Abramsverse. BUT ... aside from Nemo's time traveling & blowin'up Vulcan real good, EVERYTHING else is the exact same, based on on-screen evidence, the ONLY evidence that counts, being canonuity. Especially the FURTHER you get from the late Vulcan & the UFP, even moreso things will be the same.

It was ALL one universe, one canonuity UNTIL Nemo arrived in 2233. That's the initial tiny lil' crack in the windshield that will EVENTUALLY, over TIME, spread out across the ENTIRE glass.

The TRUE measure of the inevitable eventual fallout of Nemo's time traveling would be the state of the Alpha & Beta Quadrants in 2364 in the Abramsverse. By THAT TIME that windshield would be completely CRACKED!

Fix your damn tags!

Re: star trek:into darkness

I for one can not wait to see Kirk play hide and seek in the bed with TWO cat women.

Re: star trek:into darkness

It's like complaining about THIS:

Re: star trek:into darkness

TOS never had to resort to "sexy women."

Re: star trek:into darkness

Re: star trek:into darkness

Hey! I just found out Cupcake is going to be in the movie. I was just thinking about what happened to him. I wonder if he busts Kirk again.

Re: star trek:into darkness

While watching one of the trailers I realized this scene is probably going to be important:

Either Harrison will be exposed as a Klingon in disguise or a "super" human like Khan.

This may be followed by the scene were Marcus is screaming.

I'm betting on Klingon.

Re: star trek:into darkness

She's been nekkid in other movies.

And personally I don't complain about fan service unless it becomes the focus of the movie, though fan service consists of more than just nudity and near nudity, mind. No, if I was to complain about anything in relation to that, it's the normal "uniform" all the female crew members wear, which gives them short sleeves to go with the short skirt and no place to display rank, which is basically just an admission that they're only there to be put on display like a piece of meat in the window. Kind of like T'Pol's "uniform" which no other Vulcan ever wore, or Kira's which started as a regular uniform and turned into spandex by the last season, and Troi's get-ups. Though that's mainly because the shows were actually trying to pretend those were supposed to be uniforms and not a complaint against fan service in general.

Re: star trek:into darkness

It wouldn't be the first Star Wars/Abramstrek crossover.

Re: star trek:into darkness

I kinda want a desk lamp like that, but with LEDs instead of florescent lights.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Abrams could bring in Shatner, if not in xII, then in xIII for a chickens FLYING home to roost moment:

Re: star trek:into darkness

I watch Star Trek for cool stuff I can't see anywhere else.

There are literally millions of places I can see sex and nudity should I choose to do so.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Considering there's countless places where you can see cool sci-fi, space battles and the like and there isn't any sex or nudity in Star Trek, your comment makes no sense whatsoever.

Case closed.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Well, first, there's neither sex nor nudity as fas as is known. An attractive woman in underwear (that could as well be swimwear) is the extent of it. And, as the post I made above shows, sexy women (often in rather skimpy clothing) have been a mainstay of Star Trek since the beginning.

Second, why is it necessary for you to put some conceptual box around Star Trek, so that only your own established tastes are included? You say

but if Star Trek never ventures beyond the limits it had as a 60s television show, it will be limited to "cool stuff" you've already seen over and over again. And, really, all that stuff HAS BEEN done elsewhere...and better. Star Trek, live every other art form, has to grow, evolve, and find new stories to tell, otherwise it's will become what is was: the same ol' same ol'.

The essence of Star Trek isn't in its visual effects, it's in the characters. We follow these characters on adventures because we like them and we want to see them in new, exciting situations.

And, sorry, but 60s television is so tame by modern audience standards, that no one's going to be interested in a feature film series that abides by its limitations.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Can you point me to a place where I can see "cool sci fi space battles" using the same designs of starships and similar effects as used in Star Trek?

Re: star trek:into darkness

But, that gets into my questioning of Trek might be...*gasp*...obsolete.

Trek had to be sci-fi in the 60's in order to cloak stories about Vietnam, and racism, and Cold War paranoia, etc, etc.

Today, you can just go right ahead, and talk about everything, and far edgier stuff is routine on shows like "Law and Order: SVU", which blatantly and shamelessly does "ripped from the headlines", stuff.

DS9 showed it could still be done, and beautifully, but...I don't see another DS9 coming too soon.
I'd like to be wrong, there are several people chomping at the bit to get it back on TV, and to give it the tone/style of a DS9.

But even then....aside from our nostalgia for Trek-verse...do we NEED it anymore?

We're living in the post-Roddenberry future now, what can Trek tell us anymore?