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

Re: star trek:into darkness

Re Mitchell - I have no good answer for the comic book situation BUT, laying that aside, in a world in which a cadet can end up appointed to captain the flagship after a single mission, writing a script which gets Mitchell to demigod status without the events of WNMHGB is so simple a caveman could do it.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Exception that proves the rule.

At any rate, I've always thought the dwarf thing was stupid. But it is amusing to joke about.

Abramstrek is still crap. And a dead end for the Trek franchise.

This movie in 2013.

Another in 15 or 16 likely.

Then what? Chris Pine and company will not be making a new television series. In all likelihood they will not want to do more Trek movies.

So we'll be back to exactly where we were in 2007 or so.

Re: star trek:into darkness

All right...

Re: star trek:into darkness

The Burton Batman films were a dead end.

The fuck-up was when they tried to ride the same pony with Schumacher.

As long as Paramount doesn't repeat THAT mistake, then these movies do no real harm to the franchise (ST is at least as resilient as Batman).

And with any luck, Star Trek get's it's own Nolan in 8 -10 years (from now)


Of course, it's still perfectly possible Paramount WILL repeat the Schumacher mistake, in which case I might become more sympathetic to your position.

Re: star trek:into darkness

The beauty of Trek, is you don't have to wait a decade for "the stink to wash off", like with Batman* one can just technobabble something up to erase the timeline one doesn't like.


*course, there's no real reason Batman (or Superman) had to lie fallow for 10 years, apart from yellow-bellied studio cowardice.

Re: star trek:into darkness

The thing to remember about villains like Khan is that OldSpock has probably given the Federation the heads up on him... And the Doomsday Device. And...

Re: star trek:into darkness

I'm not even sure THAT is necessary. After all, every decade or so we get a new Bond and most of the fans seem happy to just go with it. Why couldn't we just do the same thing with Star Trek? Whether it's a continuation of the existing chronology or a reboot, why should we audiences care as long as the new product is good?

Hell, we got a total reboot of Spider-Man only a few years after the last (highly successful!) sequel of the previous series. New origin story? No problem. No one was confused (for more than a minute or so, anyway), the critics and fans liked it, and the film did good box office.

I think if I owned a good superhero or sci-fi or fantasy or spy or action or whatever franchise that audiences liked, I'd just keep rolling them out and transition casts and/or reboot when needed. This is an old pattern: it's exactly what the ancient Greek poets did with Homer's characters. Are all the subsequent plays consistent with one another? No. Does anyone care? No. The important thing is a good story.

I guess I'm accustomed to this idea from reading comic books. I've probably read a dozen each of Superman's and Batman's origins, and they're all different, save for a few core ideas (a baby rocketed to Earth from a dying civilization, a man haunted by the murder of his parents). Even as a kid, I didn't need these to be consistent. Geez, I've read no less than three NEW origins of Superman alone in the last year (Stracynski's Superman: Earth 1, Johns' Superman: Secret Origin, and the recent one in the comics) and I've enjoyed them all. I'm going to get ANOTHER one in a rebooted film series next year. Great! As long as it's fresh, interesting, and entertaining...serve it up!

Re: star trek:into darkness

I don't think old Spock would purposefully mess with the time line, and if pressed, he would probably argue that his knowledge is entirely irrelevant to the new timeline.

Re: star trek:into darkness

I wouldn't be opposed to that, but personally I was starting to love the "epic" feel that the TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY timeline was building.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Yeah, I get that. But it's not like it doesn't exist; it just exists in another timeline. We can still enjoy the alternate continuity without requiring new material to conform to it. For instance, I like Terrence Stamp's take on General Zod in the Donnerverse Superman movies, but I can accept the rebooted series will portray the character differently. In fact, I'd much prefer a new interpretation than someone doing a cheesy "kneel before Zod" impression.

Also, if you think about it, an "alternate" universe is inevitable for Trek to continue: William Shatner and Patrick Stewart and Avery Brooks can't go on playing their roles forever. The people who have written the shows and movies, too, will eventually be replaced. Isn't accepting new actors in the parts and different creative visions for the shows/films a sort of "rebooting," even if continuity isn't altered? Trek will be different in many ways if for no reason other than that...so why hold so tenaciously to the chronology?

It seems unlikely that we'll explore the TNG era in the movies, at least not any time soon, which is just as well: if we establish a chronology by telling stories set in Abramverse's future, we constrain what can happen in the Abramsverse era. And that limits the suspense we can experience. If we know Spock is an ambassador in the TNG era, we can't worry too much about him dying in a TOS-era tale. This was a big problem in the Star Wars prequels: we already KNEW how everything was going to turn out.

Re: star trek:into darkness

That's the problem. People think Trek is Kirk/Spock/Mccoy or Picard/Riker/Data only. It isnt.

Trek could go forward with a new crew, new cast, new story, new everything. Make it good and the audience will be there.

Start a movie/TV Trek franchise set about 230 years after Janeway's return to the Alpha Quadrant. Set it upon the Enterprise F or J.

Make it about the Federation's first foray outside the damn Milky Way galaxy. Add some actions, compelling standalone storylines, some (risque for now) sexual fornications and walla!

You got a new succesful Star Trek show/movie that moves the story forward.

OR, just keep doing what they are doing because Trek'09 was damn fucking good, and that is coming from a lifelong Trek fan!

Re: star trek:into darkness

^ "Walla"?

Re: star trek:into darkness

First poster has been released:

Re: star trek:into darkness

Meh, that's a bit shit if you ask me. I don't like the fact that the words "Star Trek" are tiny, as if to distance itself from the franchise. Cumberbatch, for some reason, looks like John Barrowman as Captain Jack from behind and the poster, all over, feels like a cross between one from Bay's Transformer's franchise and a Nolan bat film.

Re: star trek:into darkness

His outfit gives me kind of a Shinzon vibe...

Re: star trek:into darkness

As he should. After all, the movie rehashes the ever original "villain out for revenge plot" that is entirely new and hasn't been seen before.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Incidently, I was looking at a higher resolution version of the poster and the city appears to be London. In the higher resolution version you can see the London Eye, the London Aquarium (behind the Eye), the Thames, 30 St Mary's Axe (the Gherkin), the dome of St. Pauls, Lloyds of London and the Shard (which is in the wrong place).

A trailer description over at Trekmovie has Cumberbatch using an English accent. So can we assume that he is therefore neither Khan or Gary Mitchell and my hometown is gonna get squashed?

I call Trelane.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Website

Re: star trek:into darkness

*Pictures Cumberbatch holding his hand over his mouth, and doing the Bane voice for the whole film*

Re: star trek:into darkness

It sounds like section 31 might be in it too.

http://trekmovie.com/2012/11/26/breaking-official-synopsis-for-star-trek-into-darkness-revealed/

Re: star trek:into darkness

"When you end up stuck in the Delta Quadrant with Weezie Jefferson and Body Mod Barbie, then you have my permission to die..."

Re: star trek:into darkness

Transformers Trek, starring Christian Bale as Batman.

Re: star trek:into darkness

I think that's a pretty cool looking poster. Posters don't really do anything for me though, mind you.

Re: star trek:into darkness

All we need is for Dayton to comment and the circle will be complete.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Looking at this poster,

given that the name of the franchise is STAR TREK.
Would it be asking TOO MUCH to actually have something IN SPACE!!!!

Re: star trek:into darkness

Indeed. Nero was rather obviously based on Voyager's Year of Hell storyline. IIRC, Kurtwood Smith's character did pretty much the same, only with time travel

Malcolm McDowell in GEN comes to mind too.

Abrams Trek has gaping plot holes but it was entertaining. That's more than can be said about most Trek movies, unfortunately.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Right on cue.

Re: star trek:into darkness

Section 31 will piss dayton off.

Re: star trek:into darkness

AND BATTLES. THEY SHOULD HAVE SHOWN SHIPS IN SPACE SHOOTING PHASERS AT EACH OTHER!!!


POWW POWW KAPOWWW!!! ZZZZZZZ! ZZZZZZZ!

Re: star trek:into darkness

It's just the teaser poster, I guarantee you this does not represent the entire location of the movie. It's just introducing the villain and possibly one scene from the movie.

For comparison, one of the posters for Wrath of Khan features the surface of Ceti Alpha VI. A tiny fraction of the movie actually took place there.

And besides, there have been three Trek movies which directly involved saving Earth. It's not without precedent to have some scenes take place on Earth.

Stop sounding like a grumpy old man telling kids about "back in the day." You're only making yourself look more and more foolish as this thread continues. Your Star Trek, along with your youth, is over, dead, buried, and done with.