Re: Star Trek 12

155
You may well be right. Just a day or two ago, I was feeling good that the villain would not be Khan. Having now seen the villain display more than human strength, I'm not so sure. The final shot of the Japanese trailer is, as you say, very reminiscent of TWOK.

I still really hope (and have a tiny shred of faith) that it won't be Khan. If it is, hopefully it will be better than the last warmed-over retread of Khan, Nemesis.

Whether it is Khan or not, the movie may stink. However, the trailer looks freakin' awesome (and that I use Gen Y words to describe shows how much I think so!). I just wish Paramount would have lavished this kind of budget on the earlier Star Trek movies. Imagine what First Contact could have been like with a bigger budget. Or IV. Or even TWOK. Of course, part of the amazing looks is coming from topnotch CGI that was not available at any cost when most of the older movies were made.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

157
No, they won't redeem it, but they'll make it tasty eye candy.

And yes, I know that ST should be so much more than that.

And oh Lord, I hope he doesn't retread Khan to the extent of killing Spock. That would be beyond ridiculous.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

158
Speculation among posters on TrekMovie is that Alice Eve is playing either Janice Rand or Dr. Elizabeth Dehner. The latter of course is related to the notion that Cumberbatch is Gary Mitchell. If Cumberbatch turns out to be Khan, I'm guessing Alice Eve is going to be Carol Marcus.

So Val, if Cumberbatch is Gary Mitchell, will that be any better in your opinion than if he is Khan? To me, yes, but only because Khan is SO iconic, and anyone other than him is automatically an improvement.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

159
You know, Cumberbatch has short hair in this, not long hair drawn back into a ponytail. That certainly makes him seem less likely to be Khan. Of course, a genetic superman can wear his hair any way he wants...who's to tell him no?

Also, if that hand touch on opposite sides of the glass is Kirk and Spock, are we to believe that they have formed such a bond in the short time since the last movie, when at the end of it they were only learning to stand each other? I've read comments from some of the actors that one of this movie's themes is that the crew is still developing their relationships.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

160
It would go a long way toward redeeming Abrams and his gang in my eyes if this were Mitchell and not Khan. I always wanted to know more about Gary and this would be a good way to do it since TOS is long gone. As you pointed out, Khan is too iconic and very deeply ingrained in Trek culture to simply reboot at this point as the villain. Orci and Kurztman need prove they can write a half decent story using existing characters rather then borrowing old ideas over and over. I'd love to see Gary Mitchell's story e xp anded beyond the events of Where No Man Has Gone Before, but Khan should remain untouched.

Seeing Cumberbatch using superhuman strenght is ok so far because Mitchell gained god-like powers. As for the Kirk-Spock bond, I wouldn't be surprised to see them rush it. However, it will have zero impact with me as a viewer because they've not had the benefit of decades of friendship like they did by the time TWOK. Of course, leave it to the writers of this mess to be painfully blind to that fact.
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek 12

161
[quote=""Valkrist""]Seeing Cumberbatch using superhuman strenght is ok so far because Mitchell gained god-like powers. [/quote]

Yes, he gained god-like powers on a journey that happened years later in a different timeline. If they want to imply that still happened to him in this timeline, they're going to have some splainin' to do (says Ricky Ricardo). Also, he's fighting with a gun instead of just his mental powers, and no glowing eyes. About the best hope I see for this being Mitchell is that he's wearing a Star Fleet insignia (but Khan did too, in TWOK) and that Alive Eve's hair looks like Dr. Dehner's (which is why I think posters on TrekMovie assumed she is Dehner).

IMDB lists no character names for Cumberbatch or Alive Eve. Well, that's not true...they have Khan (rumored) for him. But no character name for her. That would really give away the game. I wonder how much longer the production will remain mum about who the villain is? There's no way they can keep it quiet till the premiere.

The fact that they are staying so mum worries me that it is Khan. However, it could be anybody other than Khan, and they'd want to allow speculation to keep going, as it feeds interest in this movie.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

162
OK, I'll answer my own question. We'll probably learn who the villain is when we see the 9-minute scene attached to The Hobbit in IMAX (unless they artfully chose a scene in which there is no mention of the villain).
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

163
It's not hard to alter Mitchell's history since everything seems to have gone wonky after the destruction of the USS Kelvin by Nero.

I still can't fathom how so many of those changes came about since many of them make no logical sense, but hey, if we have to accept that as part of this new continuum, then there's no reason to e xp ect Mitchell's story to have to unfold the same way as it did in the Prime universe, right?
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek 12

164
[quote=""Valkrist""]I still can't fathom how so many of those changes came about since many of them make no logical sense, but hey, if we have to accept that as part of this new continuum, then there's no reason to e xp ect Mitchell's story to have to unfold the same way as it did in the Prime universe, right?[/quote]

Yes, but the more things you repeat from the prime universe after such a supposedly big alteration to the timeline, the harder it is to believe.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

166
[quote=""Olorin""]Yes, but the more things you repeat from the prime universe after such a supposedly big alteration to the timeline, the harder it is to believe.[/quote]

And Orci and Kurtzman have shown exactly how much regard for the logic you just used? Yes, that's right... zero.
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek 12

167
This so irritating, how would an altered universe follow a similar sequence of events, I have said it a million times, whey didnt he just grow a pair and reboot the series.

If Spock dies and they go get him in the 3rd movie... thats like crapping on Star Trek... if they make a 4th movie about going back in time to get whales... that will be the straw that breaks my back!

But I do agree, the prime movies could have used some of that budget!

Maybe, just maybe, the people being drawn to Abrams' Trek will seek out the old movies and develop an appreciate for them.

Re: Star Trek 12

170
I'm sure the usual suspects are getting a good laugh at the e xp ense of the online reaction that showing that clip in the trailer has caused. It really annoys me that these guys get off on watching the controversy that their decisions cause, given that people are whipped into a frenzy already trying to guess the identity of the villain. Feeding you something that reminds you of Spock's death scene in TWOK, then turning it around and have it be something else entirely in the movie is almost as worse as if it actually were what it appears to be.

Here's an idea: quit trying to be so clever with your little decoys and coverups and just write a good movie that doesn't need any of this studio-generated conspiracy theory crap. Also, like quite a few people are saying that respond to these constant reports, how about a Star Trek movie that doesn't revolve around a revenge-driven villain of the week that is hell-bent on destroying Earth, and the Enterprise is the only ship in range to save everything? Wow... wouldn't that be something?
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek 12

171
[quote=""Valkrist""]Also, like quite a few people are saying that respond to these constant reports, how about a Star Trek movie that doesn't revolve around a revenge-driven villain of the week that is hell-bent on destroying Earth, and the Enterprise is the only ship in range to save everything? Wow... wouldn't that be something?[/quote]

I never understood why there always had to be villain, like these were Bond movies. All 11 movies have had a villain in some form or another, even 1 and 4, where it was a non-humanoid entity that wasn't intentionally a villain and just didn't understand what it was doing. I guess no one associated w/ST has ever felt that that a character-driven piece was an option for a movie, that it had to be a big grudge plot or something like that.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

172
TrekMovie has posted a new picture released by the production and it has a caption that includes the actors' and characters' names, including the person Cumberbatch is playing. Click this link only if you want a spoiler: http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/10/new-ima ... irk-spock/

I wish we had the spoiler tag that I've seen on other vBulletin sites that automatically hides the text for you. I just looked through the Admin control panel and didn't see an option to add it. Thus, I am going to put the rest of my post in black font; highlight to read.

I just checked the Star Trek Encyclopedia and the character database on the official site, StarTrek.com, bearing in mind this is supposed to be a character from canon. There is a William B Harrison, an officer of the SS Beagle who was executed on the Roman Empire planet in TOS. There is no John Harrison. There is, however, a Harrison (no first name given) who was a bridge officer on Kirk's Enterprise that Kirk gave a commendation to when Khan cut off life support in Space Seed. I find it hard to believe they would pluck someone so obscure from Star Trek canon and make them into a villain, especially when it would tweak the noses of the Khan camp. My theory: Abrams is lying to throw people off the scent.

On another note, Bill Hunt, who writes the Digital Bits, has friends within the production and he thinks he has figured out who the villain is. Bear in mind, he didn't say his friends told him. I think he is inferring from things they've said. Anyway, he is now cautiously optimistic. Whatever that means! I guess you'd have to know how he felt about all the speculation just far to know how he'd feel about his inference.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

180
The full teaser (that last one was an "announcement" trailer) is now available.

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/para ... odarkness/

For anyone who feared that Abrams might skip the lens flares this time, fear not!

It's funny the way they juxtapose scenes when they cut a trailer. There is a scene of a big wet kiss between Spock and Uhura, followed by the huge scream of Carol Marcus that was in the announcement trailer. My sentiments exactly, Carol!

Other miscellaneous observations....

It's not the Enterprise crashing into San Francisco Bay; the shape of the nacelles is wrong.

Star Fleet uniforms look much more like current military uniforms in this movie, with hats and epaulets. The everyday aboard-ship duty uniform is the same as last time. I swear, I think these Abrams movies may have had a bigger budget just for uniforms than some of the previous movies had for everything!

Take note of a quick scene of a room filled with what appear to be cryostasis tubes (groan). Maybe they're just 23rd century coffins, but.... All I can say is that if Benedict Cumberbatch is truly not playing Khan, then he must be another augment.
Last edited by Olorin on Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

181
Just watched the newest trailer and not sure why I should hope for anything different, but the whole thing just screamed "Star Wars" at me, and not the old Star Wars either, but the prequels instead, filled to the brim with over the top CGI, high-speed vehicles chases, lots of e xp losions, and daredevil stunts.

Aside from a couple of glimpses of a ship that somewhat resembles a vessel once called Enterprise, and some primary colour style-uniforms that were last seen in a certain 60's television show, nothing about this movie says "Star Trek" to me.
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

183
Shouldn't have said that, now I'm curious to no end and have to look.

I also know how you feel about reviews but I read my first one on this movie already (no spoilers in it,) and the guy said it was tired, unoriginal, and lacked soul. Before anyone jumps in that the reviewer is a hater, he is a fan old Trek and actually had very high praise for the first reboot movie. Not so with this one. Greatest complaint was flash over substance, undoing a lot of what the first movie accomplished, little to no character development, and a rehash of old Trek plots that made it all feel very derivative.
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

186
Well, I'm going to choose to remain ignorant of whatever this wrinkle is, and go in cold. I haven't read really much about the plot other than what's shown in the trailers and said in the soundbites. I'm e xp ecting it to look good but do little more than that.

It's unfortunate because they they have a good cast and awesome looking special effects (and I really try to avoid the word "awesome"), and I think Abrams is an interesting enough director. But if the story is just a rehash, what's the point? They could bring back Rick Berman for that!

Abrams almost won't certainly won't be directing the next one, due to timing problems with Star Wars and Paramount's insistence on a movie in 2016 for the 50th anniversary. (At least for Star Wars, the studio hired an acclaimed writer.) Unfortunately, I think we're stuck with the current writing crew until either they get bored or a movie bombs really hard (and even then, it took two bombs for Paramount to pull the plug on Berman).

In all honesty, I haven't been thinking that much about it the last few days. I was really sick last week (here's a clue :p uker :) and the thought of seeing a big flashy movie with all sorts of fast cuts and roller coaster action in IMAX 3D hasn't been too appealing as yet. Plus, I'm going out of town this weekend, so I'll be waiting till Sunday evening.

Incidentally, we now have an IMAX theater in our town and I no longer have to drive 130 miles each way if I want to see a movie in IMAX.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

187
FWIW, STID is polling 10 points higher than Iron Man 3 on Rotten Tomatoes. Of course, most of those critics are not long timer Trekkers who will judge every aspect of this movie about whether it is Star Trek enough. They're just judging it as a summer popcorn movie, undoubtedly.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

188
I have seen it. Here are some brief, spoiler-free comments.

As a big, summer action movie, it definitely delivers. I saw it in IMAX 3D and it was visually and sonically breath-taking. Sometimes the action is so loud, though, that I couldn't make out the dialog and found myself wishing for the remote so I could turn on the subtitles.

It is very well paced and has lots of nice character moments. It builds on elements of the 2009 movie and also strongly references traditional Trek. The humor was not nearly as ham-handed as that of the 2009 movie, though there was still a humor element involving McCoy ministering to Kirk.

Now, what did I think of the story? I thought it started out very strongly, playing on the theme of whether Kirk is too much of a cowboy. This has just come to a head when the main plot of the movie kicks in to test Kirk's mettle. Things occur on Earth, the plot is in motion, the Enterprise is dispatched, things moving along quickly. About mid-movie there is a plot point that rather dismayed me. Later on, toward the end, this plays out in a way that made me feel "Really? Are you really doing this?" This whole aspect is the movie's biggest downfall, and one that I can't go into without becoming overtly spoilery. Let's just say that for all the Abrams crew's smarmy self-congratulation on their cleverness of creating an alternate timeline last time to free their hands creatively, they completely beg the question of why they bothered. Also, the resolution to a certain story arc is telegraphed way too soon in the course of events.

Did I like the movie?

Before I answer that, I have to say that I have long made my peace with the Abramsverse and Abrams type of story-telling. This isn't my father's Star Trek, or mine for that matter, but I can appreciate it for what it is and what it does well, and for the most part let it slide when it does things that make most purists steam and rant.

All that having been said....

I did not dislike the movie. Most of it I quite enjoyed and found to be very entertaining. There were aspects to it that I thought were poor choices in light of an entire galaxy of creative freedom, as alluded to above. Certainly, however, I liked it better upon first viewing than Star Trek 2009. I knew what to e xp ect and did not leave the theater in shock, and it won't take repeat viewings to make me not hate it. So in that regard, it was a big step forward.

Please, no one hate me for not taking to the streets with protest signs. Everyone can see it and like it or not as they see fit. For myself, I no longer go into a Star Trek movie (or any movie, for that matter) trying to compare it to some past high standard. At this time, I won't say more about it all than that.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

190
Basically I was just irritated by...spoiler follows, don't highlight following text written in black..... The revelation that Benedict Cumberbatch's character was indeed Khan, after repeatedly saying they weren't rehashing old plots, etc. Even if you subscribe to the belief that certain people are destined to cross paths no matter what timeline you are in, everything up to the point of the the timeline change shouldn't be altered much, so why was the person known as Kahn all of a sudden British? Ok spoilers over.

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

191
Ha ha, I had that same thought. Apparently there's been a little bit of blowback about it. OK, highlight to read spoilers.

I read that there were protests from the American Sikh community about a Sikh being portrayed by an Anglo. Actually, getting my terms straight here, "Sikh" is a religion and I guess can be any ethnicity. In this day and age, it is amazing that they would cast somebody very white and very British to play a character that's ethnically Indian. Sure, they died his hair black, but come on. Moreover, so far as I know, they never even considered any Indian actors. I can think of at least one Indian actor that they would know well: Naveen Andrews, who was in Lost. Maybe he was considered too old now...I don't know. Another actor from that general part of the world who would have been really good, except they wasted him in the 2009 movie, was Farah Tahir, who played the captain of the Kelvin.

However, they did consider Hispanic actors. OK, what's more insulting to a person of a non-white ethnic group, to be portrayed by a white actor or to be portrayed by a non-white actor of the wrong ethnicity, with the implication that all brown people are interchangeable? Anyway, they supposedly courted Benecio del Toro and Demián Bichir, another Hispanic actor. Why they didn't get them, I don't know. And when they didn't, maybe they just said, who can we get who's a really great actor, and let's not worry about ethnicity?

Also, I have wondered if they were too squeamish about casting the part ethnically correctly. Perhaps they were worried it would make them seem racist if they cast a person of color as a villain.


End spoilers.

[quote=""BladeCollector""]Basically I was just irritated by...spoiler follows, don't highlight following text written in black..... The revelation that Benedict Cumberbatch's character was indeed Khan, after repeatedly saying they weren't rehashing old plots, etc. Even if you subscribe to the belief that certain people are destined to cross paths no matter what timeline you are in, everything up to the point of the the timeline change shouldn't be altered much, so why was the person known as Khan all of a sudden British? Ok spoilers over.[/quote]
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

196
Well, I went back a read a few pages of this thread...just as e xp ected. Here I am, head over heels in love with Star Trek because of Abrams' movies, and the Old Guard is boo-hissing at the new movies. Fair is fair, Old Guard pretty much just means Val. :P I don't e xp ect any of you gentleman to really love anything new, because you're always going to compare it to your first e xp eriences with Trek, "back in the day" so to speak. But let's face it, you're never going to like these as much as TOS or TNG because that was your first Trek! You fall in love with something, and you're never going to fully appreciate a reboot because it's not the same thing you fell in love with. I'm sure if someone rebooted LotR in 30 years, I'd pick it apart like a rat in a trash can.

That being said, I think STID is an amazing film. Why go back and hit on the Khan story again, you say? Why, because he's a great character who my generation has never met before, I say! My 16 year old girlfriend is taking her dad, who hasn't watched Trek in ages, to the theater to see Into Darkness because she liked this movie so much. I've been watching TOS all week because I liked Trek XI and XII so much, and my friends and I have already planned a date to watch all five of the first Star Trek movies this week. Abrams has taken a generation who only knows the new Star Wars movies and introduced us to a whole new scifi universe to appreciate and love. Sure, TOS won't be for everyone. But I ask, would you rather Kirk and Spock fall into the lapse of time and be forgotten by subsequent generations? Or would you rather Star Trek remain in the hearts of movie-goers such as myself, who will undoubtedly show Trek to our kids one day and pass it on? :coolsmile


As for the movie itself, I thought it blew away the majority of the sumer action-thrillers of the past decade. Undeniably better than the SW prequels and most of this generation of Marvel movies, not only in great special effects but the depth of each character. I could feel the relationships between the characters, like it was the same cast that had Trekked across the universe from '66-'69 together. Cumberbatch played a real mean, ruthless villain, and if this is the "weak comeback" by Abrams then I absolutely cannot wait to watch the original Wrath of Khan. The suspense in Into Darkness was extremely gripping; I spent the last hour or so of the movie literally shaking and bouncing in my seat in anticipation. It just kept building and building and building. The relationship between Kirk and Spock was great to see, and my friend says I'll appreciate some of the plot even more after I see Wrath of Khan. Without saying anything more in case some of you haven't seen it, I'll just say 10/10 in my book. :thumbs_up

And the best part is, I didn't even pay to see it. Gotta love those gift certificates. :crazy:
"Remember, the force will be with you, always."

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

197
Whether or not the movie is good or not is only a piece of the puzzle. To me, the issues are:

A. People calling it a reboot, when, no matter how much it may seem to be a reboot it cannot be... because, the actual movie Star Trek XI started out in the Prime Universe, Romulus Prime was destroyed, Prime Spock, played by Leonard Nimoy is in the new universe interacting with the new characters... reboot is out the window... these movies have altered the Prime Universe.

B. I would have have more respect for JJ Abrams and crew if he would have made a legitimate reboot... then you can do whatever you want.

C. I guess the cat is out of the bag, if not then, highlight to read if you subscribe to the idea that no matter what universe you are in, people are destined to meet, their paths are destined to cross... ok ok, I will give you that, but that does not make Khan, who was supposed to be Indian (India Indian) British. Albeit Ricardo Montalban was not Indian, but the character was. Thats like making Spock the captain of the Enterprise and Kirk the first officer.

D. Benedict Cumberbatch, indeed, was aweso
me in this movie and could have still been awesome as a different character, highlight above to read.

E. Again highlight to read... swapping out the Kirk/Spock most memorable and heartfelt scenes from TWOK for this new movie, to me cheeses out the meaningfulness of the original. The suspense wasn't the same, back in 82, people legitimately thought Spock was dead, Leonard Nimoy was done with the character, etc etc etc... that scene in TWOK could rip the tears out of the most stone cold emotionless person!

Am I being picky, of course I am, was the movie good, yes I enjoyed it, there are things I would have rather been done differently. I would rather movies continuing in the prime universe. To me, these are "What If" movies. There are movies I am more critical about and movies I am less critical about. I am less critical about, say the SW prequels, other than Jar Jar Binks and Jake Lloyd, I was pretty much good with them. Movies, like Xmen 3, I adamantly hated the fact that they made Phoenix Jean Grey's split personality, when in fact, Phoenix is an alien being that took the form of Jean Grey's body!

I will support these movies to an extent, because I'd rather these movies than let Star Trek die. If these movies bring in new fans to appreciate the old stuff, then awesome. But, a lot of the younger generation are going to be impressed by the flash, the glitz and glamor, etc. Star Trek had its special effects, but it was story and character driven... the new generation may not like that. I look back at ST TNG season 1 and some of the original effects are almost painful to watch!

Sorry, I will get off my soapbox now.

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

198
I thought the new movie was significantly better than ST 2009, all those issues listed in the article Val linked in the Chatbox aside. It felt more like Star Trek. There was the Prime Directive front and center, and it was a big issue. The relationship that really got me in this one was the one between Kirk and Pike, a very nice father/son dynamic.

Sure, there were lots of things that caused raised eyebrows, like beaming to Kronos or the amount of time it takes to travel from Kronos at warp, etc. Those are relatively small quibbles. Moreover, since they established transwarp beaming in the last one, is it not logical that Star Fleet would try to further refine and enhance the technology?

As for bigger quibbles, there are the role played by Cumberbatch, his missing ethnicity, and the mirroring of the climax of TWOK. I was always against redoing any of the villains from TOS or its movies. I thought they should be left alone. However, if we are recasting and reconceptualizing the crew of the Enterprise, we are forced to admit that doing the same with the villains is fair game. I mean, if you can redo Captain Kirk, you can redo anybody! The villain's ethnicity is a little harder to justify. Were there no suitable Indian or Pakistani actors? I think that's just laziness.

And as for mirroring the climax of TWOK, when I first saw STID, I said, "Really? Are you really going to do this?" In addition to BC's comments about destiny, I'd also have to say this. They did this sort of thing in Fringe all the time. I loved it in Fringe, so I don't think I can condemn it in Star Trek. Would I prefer they not have done it? Sure. Am I going to go on a rant about it? No.

@BC, I respectfully have to disagree with your interpretation of "reboot." I think you're drawing a distinction so fine most people would fail to see it. While events in the prime timeline did initiate the plot of ST 2009, the new universe is independent from the prime universe, the presence of the elder Spock notwithstanding. These characters are in a different universe with a different history from the point of the destruction of the Kelvin onward. Things are not going to occur the way they did the first time around. Some things may not happen in this universe. Other things may happen that did not happen in the prime universe. It's a different universe. So, to me, it's a reboot.

And the prime universe still exists...Kurtzman and Orci were very e xp licit about that in interviews. They knew their lives would have been in danger had they suggested that the universe of TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT no longer existed. I don't recall how e xp licitly the new timeline was e xp lained in ST 09, but the continued existence of the prime universe is definite.

I alone of probably everyone on this forum watched TOS in first run during the 1960s. I really became familiar with it, and a huge fan of it, during its syndicated run in the early 70s. I had misgivings about the movies as they tended to dumb down the franchise and emphasize the action. But I loved them for what they were, esp. II/III/IV. Then TNG came along and I thought it would be a fiasco. I was wrong about that. It was very different from TOS and the TOS movies, and it took 2 years to find its legs and its voice. But it was tremendous. Then came its movies, and again, they tended to dumb down plot in favor of action.

And now we have Abrams Trek. It is certainly different from previous incarnations of Star Trek. But what it does well, it does very well. If you're going to dumb down plot and make it about action, then give us some really tremendous action. Blow up a planet? Sure. Hide the Enterprise in an ocean? Go for it. If you're going to play it for action, then give it all you've got. I think it stands head and shoulders above the Star Wars prequels (not that that's saying all that much) as far as action goes. And I'd also say it has much better story and direction than the SW prequels.

It's true, this is not your father's Star Trek. But it is bringing Star Trek to a new generation. Hard though this is for me to fathom, in a society filled with DVDs, cable TV, internet streaming, and so forth, there are plenty of people who like sci fi movies but have never seen other forms of Star Trek. If Abrams brings them into the fold, then I say warp speed!
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

199
Thats kind of what I was talking about with my entire rant about the reboot issue.

To me it is a reboot and I would have been fine with a reboot, but JJ Abrams had to go and jack around with the actual Prime Universe. Blowing up Romulus Prime, to me, is a much more interesting story than the alternate universe... taking Spock Prime from the Prime Universe is jacking around with the Prime Universe, Nero came from the Prime Universe. The new Star Trek reboot is inter-weaved with the Prime Universe, for me, too much.

If after the Kelvin blew up is where their stories diverge from "history" then why is the back stories of characters different.

To be a true reboot, in my opinion, you only use source material. Batman Begins had nothing to do with Michael Keaton's Batman movie. The Amazing Spider-Man had nothing to do with Tobey McGuire's Spiderman movies, other than the source material.

If JJ Abrams had the cajones to say "I am rebooting Star Trek" I would have been more okay with it than this "cop out" strategy he keeps taking. Whats next, is he going to make a movie about saving manatees instead of whales? Is Spock going to call up Spock and ask if he had to deal with it again?

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

200
BC, I must say that your problem with the term reboot is so confusing that I can't even counter-argue. :P The cast of TOS is, for the first time, being recast. That is a reboot, as far as I'm concerned. Quite frankly, I don't care what he calls it. I call it Star Trek. And I call it damned good. :coolsmile


As for the ethnicity of Khan, well, I've never seen WOK so I didn't know the difference. And I'm guessing that about 60% of the people who went to see this movie didn't know it either. I guess I would've taken issue with it if Cumberbatch hadn't done such a great job with it. I don't really understand the whole "destined to meet" thing, I'm assuming those were comments made by Abrams e xp laining his reason for bringing back Khan? Once again, the casual movie goer doesn't really care. A lot of Trek fans I know (being the ones who convinced me to get into Trek) say that the movies aren't worth watching if there isn't a good villain, so seeing as Khan is pretty much the ultimate villain, it makes business sense for Abrams to kick off his series with strong villains.

My friend e xp lained to me the fate-swap with Kirk and Spock...I know I shed a tear for Kirk as I watched Into Darkness, so I don't know what there is to complain about. Someone who's just starting to watch Star Trek might think that Chris Pine is done with the character forever and that Kirk was really dead, same way people might have thought about Nimoy as Spock in WOK. It was very tear-jerking to watch their relationship finally come together and then Kirk seemingly bite the bullet while trying to save his crew, the same way his father died in Trek XI. Again, I think it just doesn't hit you as hard, BC, because you've seen it before. It's not your first time with this story line.
"Remember, the force will be with you, always."
Post Reply

Return to “Star Trek & Star Wars”