They've released the new trailer for Star Trek Into Darkness (still having trouble saying that title in a way that makes sense).
I still don't know what to make of this. I was assuming the Khan rumors were nonsense, but 'I have returned to have my vengeance' sounds pretty Khan-y.
On the other hand, he's still a blue-eyed incredibly pale guy (not saying that people called Khan can't be incredibly pale, just that the last actor was really... not). Not that Scotty looks similar to the original actor either, so maybe it's not a big deal?
Thoughts?
ETA - The Japanese Trailer is basically the same, except for the last fifteen or so seconds. Worth a look. It adds a bit of emotion that was missing in the rest of the clip.
[ December 06, 2012, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
The whole vengeance on the world thing got my attention. Khan or not (I doubt it will be Khan) he sounds too much like Nero's character. Pissed off and looking for revenge.
I am hoping for some kind of science fiction/exploration element. What made Wrath of Khan (and to an extent Search for Spock) work so well was the blend of the big bad, with the wonders of Project Genesis.
The trailer as a whole was a jumbled mess in my opinion. Definitely designed to grab the attention of people who are just in it for the action and special effects.
I am betting someone (probably Spock) will be killed at the end to mirror what happened in Wrath of Khan. Or captured to mirror Empire Strikes Back. Sacrificing a major character seems to be a big theme in the middle of a planned trilogy.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
It's Gary Mitchell, not Kahn. Don't know for sure but I think it's a good bet.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
And if it is Mitchell, I think that would make Alice Eve's mysterious character Dr. Elizabeth Dehner.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: It's Gary Mitchell, not Kahn. Don't know for sure but I think it's a good bet.
I know comics are not normally canon, but they did the Gary Mitchell thing in the current Star Trek comics already. Supposedly the writers of the movie are helping with the comic to make sure there are no contradictions.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Trailer looks terrible. It looks like Transformers mixed with Star Wars. At one point they visit Mustafar. And they borrowed Inceptions soundtrack. It's Star Trek, not Earth Trek.
Terrible trailer.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I didn't think the trailer was absolutely horrible considering it's a teaser trailer for a studio tentpole event film. They've got to try to draw on the widest crowd as possible. I think the movie as a whole will have more of the character moments we're hoping for. Or I hope so.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It's Star Trek, not Earth Trek.
This is my complaint. The poster and now this trailer don't show much footage of the Enterprise crew actually being in space. I don't want another Earth-based action movie. If they're going to give me an action movie (which I'm still hoping this will be more than that), I want space at least.
I will admit to being really excited about the first glimpse, early on, of Benedict Cumberbatch in character. I think the next few years are going to be big for him.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Look up the Japanese version, very intriguing extra footage at the end...
Unfortunately, I can't access YouTube at work, so I'll have to wait until later.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
That was pretty underwhelming. Lyrhawn's "Earth Trek" remark is dead on.
Having just seen the HD remaster of "The Measure of a Man" on the big screen last week, it's all the more obvious that J.J. Abrams doesn't fundamentally get Star Trek. Not that Trek needs to be pure Roddenberry idealism to be good - DS9 is my favorite series, after all. But it does need to, at some level, but about big ideas that expand the mind. You can do still that, even in our dark and gritty, Nolan-infused times.
Heck, Nolan himself does it quite well! But Abrams and his writers don't. They just don't.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Look up the Japanese version, very intriguing extra footage at the end...
Unfortunately, I can't access YouTube at work, so I'll have to wait until later.
Kirk and Spock's hands pressed together, with a glass door/window separating them. Look a lot like the end of Wrath of Khan.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
They're going to have to do quite a bit to further sell the idea of Kirk and Spock being "besties." They weren't quite to that point at the end of the reboot.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From Tarrsk DS9 is my favorite series, after all.
We are Star Trek soul mates. DS9 has always been my favorite, and I can never get anyone else to admit it's theirs.
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: They're going to have to do quite a bit to further sell the idea of Kirk and Spock being "besties." They weren't quite to that point at the end of the reboot.
But that's the whole problem with this reboot. In the original series, they'd been a crew for awhile. THEN they had three years of adventure, THEN that had movies.
The crew of THIS Enterprise has only been together for five minutes, and everyone is basically 20 years old. Especially after the fairly contentious relationship Spock and Kirk had in the first movie, there is simply no way they'll be able to pull of a Wrath of Khan 2.0 in this next movie. I simply won't buy it.
You can't force someone to have a deeply felt emotional response to something through sheer force of will. It has to be genuine.
I thought the first remake movie was a great action flick, but it didn't really feel like Star Trek. It felt like Star Trek trying to be Star Wars. They wanted more flash, more action, more pizazz, and that's simply never been where Star Trek's strength has come from. Tarrsk mentioned "Measure of a Man," maybe the first really, really good TNG episode of that series. The entire episode is just sitting around talking, like many Star Trek episodes are, but it's undeniably powerful stuff, and I think it's those moral questions and quandaries they have to wrestle with, more than shooting phasers and blowing things up, that makes Star Trek special.
The visuals in First Contact were very shiny compared to what we've seen before, but it was Picard's struggle with vengeance, the Ahab/Moby Dick allusion, that gave it its power.
This new Star Trek is all flash and no substance, which I think takes it closer to Star Wars. I love Star Wars, but it's all above water. Especially the most recent three, it's all about fight scenes, space battles, as much CGI as possible, only mixed with the last 5-10 years of grittily re-imagining just about everything as ten times darker, tortured and dramatic than it was in its first iteration (such as Batman, among others). And Star Wars is fun, it's a good ride. The first Star Trek was fun, it was a good ride, and so might this next one be as well.
But it won't be Star Trek.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
DS9 will always be my favorite as well. My college aged cousin just finished watching TNG for the first time. Swore nothing could be better. Just finished the first season of DS9, and he agrees with me now. We haven't even gotten to the good stuff yet.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I remember reading somewhere that DS9 had the highest ratings out of any of the Trek shows.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: DS9 will always be my favorite as well. My college aged cousin just finished watching TNG for the first time. Swore nothing could be better. Just finished the first season of DS9, and he agrees with me now. We haven't even gotten to the good stuff yet.
Not even close to the good stuff, that's awesome. The first three seasons have a handful of good episodes. But Season 4 is where it really takes off and hits its stride.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Just a couple notes: I think all the TNG Trek movies were terrible action movies, including First Contact.
Also, Lyr, DS9 is definitely the best series. By a wide margin, in my opinion. The lack of Roddenberry "idealism" (yuck) is a point in its favor, not a mark against it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Just a couple notes: I think all the TNG Trek movies were terrible action movies, including First Contact.
Also, Lyr, DS9 is definitely the best series. By a wide margin, in my opinion. The lack of Roddenberry "idealism" (yuck) is a point in its favor, not a mark against it.
I agree! Especially compared to what we get today, none of the Star Trek movies are action-oriented romps. Other than the opening battle in First Contact, it's mostly very tense walking and talking, with the occasional phaser rifle being fired.
And it was still awesome. The newer movies are sacrificing everything that made Wrath of Khan and First Contact awesome to punch up the action. Apparently they haven't been able to find a balance between the two yet. I think the older movies did tension very well, but they all kept the action to an absolute minimum, in keeping with the show.
DS9 had more action than any other show, and it was high flying and impressive at times, but even then, my favorite episodes aren't the shoot 'em ups (though I do love them). The best episodes, like "In the Pale Moonlight," wrestle with moral quandaries. Sisko's was especially compelling because he strayed well over the line.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:From Tarrsk DS9 is my favorite series, after all.
We are Star Trek soul mates. DS9 has always been my favorite, and I can never get anyone else to admit it's theirs.
Weird. It's my favorite too. It really was a fantastic show, and the characters had so much growth throughout the series. If you look at Bashir (especially), Sisko, Kira... even Quark, by the end, they're just so changed from who they started out as. Loved it.
I'm not hating on this trailer yet, since I don't think it really shows enough to judge. I think the red-weed scenes and the volcano or whatever erupting might be happening on another planet, so I'm not too freaked out yet about it being stuck on Earth. I agree that it's somewhat lacking in showing the wonders of interstellar travel, though.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Just a couple notes: I think all the TNG Trek movies were terrible action movies, including First Contact.
Also, Lyr, DS9 is definitely the best series. By a wide margin, in my opinion. The lack of Roddenberry "idealism" (yuck) is a point in its favor, not a mark against it.
Insurrection is actually my favorite of the TNG films. I know I am severely in the minority for that one. But it slowed things down a bit. We got a little character development on people other than Picard and Data. We finally had a TNG romance that stuck. It had a morality story like in the series. It tied in nicely with the Dominion War, with a more desperate Starfleet.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I really really liked DSN, but not -more- then TNG.
I can't, off the top of my head, think of a single TNG movie that I can call a "good movie"...I mean, they all had enjoyable moments, and some were worse then others, but none were great.
And while I have never liked TOS, movies 4 and 6 were straight up awesome!
"There be whales here captain!"
" There is an old Vulcan proverb: only Nixon could go to China."
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
DS9 was pretty good. I give it... four lights.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
There are five lights!
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And it was still awesome. The newer movies are sacrificing everything that made Wrath of Khan and First Contact awesome to punch up the action. Apparently they haven't been able to find a balance between the two yet. I think the older movies did tension very well, but they all kept the action to an absolute minimum, in keeping with the show.
DS9 had more action than any other show, and it was high flying and impressive at times, but even then, my favorite episodes aren't the shoot 'em ups (though I do love them). The best episodes, like "In the Pale Moonlight," wrestle with moral quandaries. Sisko's was especially compelling because he strayed well over the line.
To be fair, the comparatively minimal action in the TOS Trek movies had a lot to do with the limited budgets and effects of the time. Wrath of Khan has at least as much space battle action as Star Wars, for example. And as you said, DS9 itself is perhaps the most action-heavy of the Trek series.
So action and Star Trek can be a harmonious pairing. There's nothing wrong, per se, about the idea of "punching up" Star Trek with modern visual effects and big explosions. The problem arises, though, when you're doing that at the expense of exploring complex themes and ideas (the true "strange new worlds"), which is always what set Trek apart as a space opera.
Star Trek always dared to do what other pop scifi did not, which was to proactively confront the most trenchant issues of its day. It didn't always do so successfully (nor in ways that necessarily hold up over time), but it always made that effort. For TOS, those issues were race and the Cold War. For TNG, it was questions of existentialism and cultural relativism (and yes, the value of pop psychology). And for DS9, it was almost presciently on the nose about war and terrorism. In a lot of ways, Voyager and Enterprise failed because they didn't look forward to the "big issues" of their time - or when they tried, did so in ways that aped what other, more ambitious shows were doing better.
(All of that to say, I guess, that the best "Star Trek" series of the past ten years was "Battlestar Galactica." )
Abrams' Star Trek fails as Star Trek because it tries to apply the Star Wars model of looking backwards to produce exciting storytelling. Which works just fine for Star Wars (or at least, it did once upon a time). But it's just not what Star Trek was ever about. Abrams has abandoned the actual mission statement that defines Star Trek as a franchise in the name of resuscitation. So I guess we shouldn't be surprised that what we get is Zombie Trek.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Bunch of fanboys. Enterprise was the best series. And the trailer looks awesome.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Enterprise was awful. At least Voyager had the Doctor and Seven of Nine. And wasn't a god damn prequel in a franchise built on looking forward into the future.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I still haven't watched most of Enterprise. From what I remember, the only characters I actually liked were the Doctor and the dog.
I do remember thinking that it had the worst captain ever. (And I say that as someone who loved Quantum Leap to tiny little pieces.) Maybe I'll try to catch up on it over the holidays this year and see if I change my mind.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Voyager and Enterprise had to worry about UPN network executives. I really think that was their problem. TNG and DS9 were syndicated. I remember a lot of good syndicated shows in the 90s.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: I still actually haven't watched most of Enterprise. From what I remember, the only characters I actually liked were the Doctor and the dog.
I do remember thinking that it had the worst captain ever. (And I say that as someone who loved Quantum Leap to tiny little pieces.) Maybe I'll try to catch up on it this Christmas and see if I change my mind.
The doctor, the dog, and Trip.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Oh, yes. Trip. But unfortunately I did watch the last episode, so I can't allow myself to care about him at all. I'd actually forgotten the character existed.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Oh, yes. Trip. But unfortunately I did watch the last episode, so I can't allow myself to care about him at all. I'd actually forgotten the character existed.
Ah, but that was an historical account of events on the holodeck more than 200 years later.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
So what, we just write it off as an aberration like Chakotay and Seven's final episode romance? Never happened? Because that sounds like a very good idea.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
DS9 was easily my favorite Trek. But is it really wrong for me to like Enterprise? Then again, I might be a bit weird since I really don't like Voyager, and TNG is hit or miss with me. (But when TNG hits, it hits hard.)
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Voyager still worked for me because I liked the characters. Not so much Neelix, but the Doctor, Seven, even Janeway were likable to me (I know that some people can't stand her, but it was great to see an older kickass, take-charge woman - who could fight the Borg and fix her hair at the same time - on TV when I was a teenage girl). Even usually dead, always boring Harry Kim was not a bad guy.
Enterprise seemed to be all dull, petty characters who I would actually go out of my way to avoid.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I'm going through Enterprise right now and have been pleasantly surprised. It is much more of a adventure story where much of TNG (the only one I've seen most of) is more often a human piece set in space.
Something makes me feel like stating that Q was the best idea for a character I have ever found.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Look up the Japanese version, very intriguing extra footage at the end...
Unfortunately, I can't access YouTube at work, so I'll have to wait until later.
Kirk and Spock's hands pressed together, with a glass door/window separating them. Look a lot like the end of Wrath of Khan.
I am not so sure that is Kirk and Spock. In the original Kahn, Kirk was outside and Spock was trapped in the room. In this trailer though the person on the outside is a blue shirt, and Kirk is part of the yellow shirt club.
I watched the trailer this morning and I don't remember seeing their faces in that snippet.
DS9 was good, but the first few seasons had way too many "filler" episodes. I think it was a challenge for the writers because the setting was always on the same space station, in the same part of space. It wasn't until the Dominion came into the picture that I really got into it.
Best Star Trek episode of all time goes to TNG. "The Inner Light" is not only the best Star Trek episode of all time, but one of the best episodes of TV in general.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Abrams has abandoned the actual mission statement that defines Star Trek as a franchise in the name of resuscitation. So I guess we shouldn't be surprised that what we get is Zombie Trek.
Well said.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: an aberration like Chakotay and Seven's final episode romance? Never happened?
I love that bit. Some of my favorite fanfic is Chakotay/Seven fic.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Just a couple notes: I think all the TNG Trek movies were terrible action movies, including First Contact.
Also, Lyr, DS9 is definitely the best series. By a wide margin, in my opinion. The lack of Roddenberry "idealism" (yuck) is a point in its favor, not a mark against it.
I agree! Especially compared to what we get today, none of the Star Trek movies are action-oriented romps. Other than the opening battle in First Contact, it's mostly very tense walking and talking, with the occasional phaser rifle being fired.
And it was still awesome. The newer movies are sacrificing everything that made Wrath of Khan and First Contact awesome to punch up the action. Apparently they haven't been able to find a balance between the two yet. I think the older movies did tension very well, but they all kept the action to an absolute minimum, in keeping with the show.
DS9 had more action than any other show, and it was high flying and impressive at times, but even then, my favorite episodes aren't the shoot 'em ups (though I do love them). The best episodes, like "In the Pale Moonlight," wrestle with moral quandaries. Sisko's was especially compelling because he strayed well over the line.
Heh, I can't tell if you're intentionally yanking my chain or you misread me.
I think the TNG movies tried to be action movies. And they were terrible. The new Trek tried to be an action movie, and succeeded.
I can totally understand people who think the new Trek fails to live up to the shows. I don't totally agree, but I get it.
But saying the new Trek fails compared to First Contact, or, god forbid, Insurrection? Malarkey. Rose colored glasses.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I think the TNG movies tried to be action movies. And they were terrible. The new Trek tried to be an action movie, and succeeded.
Indeed.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
First Contact sucks. Why do people like it? Generations is better. At least it's a little bit Star Trekky.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: It's Gary Mitchell, not Kahn. Don't know for sure but I think it's a good bet.
I think you are right. I can easily see Benedict Cumberbatch as Gary Mitchell and Alice Eve certainly looks like Dr. Dehner in the trailer.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: Alice Eve certainly looks like Dr. Dehner in the trailer.
*Looks it up*
She really does, doesn't she? The hair is exactly the same.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
What about Garth of Izar?
Io9 has a scene by scene breakdown. Cumbeatch does not appear to have godlike powers. He is seen in hand to hand combat, wielding a gun, and Peter Weller plays a flunkie.
Abrams likes flashbacks though, so Mitchell seeking revenge for the events in the comic are possible. This is how the first movie worked. The comics told the story of Spock and Nero in the tng timeline.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Cumbeatch. *snort*
Sorry. I have to say that I'm looking forward to watching his name get butchered as his fame rises.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Heh. iPad typing never turns out well for me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Just a couple notes: I think all the TNG Trek movies were terrible action movies, including First Contact.
Also, Lyr, DS9 is definitely the best series. By a wide margin, in my opinion. The lack of Roddenberry "idealism" (yuck) is a point in its favor, not a mark against it.
I agree! Especially compared to what we get today, none of the Star Trek movies are action-oriented romps. Other than the opening battle in First Contact, it's mostly very tense walking and talking, with the occasional phaser rifle being fired.
And it was still awesome. The newer movies are sacrificing everything that made Wrath of Khan and First Contact awesome to punch up the action. Apparently they haven't been able to find a balance between the two yet. I think the older movies did tension very well, but they all kept the action to an absolute minimum, in keeping with the show.
DS9 had more action than any other show, and it was high flying and impressive at times, but even then, my favorite episodes aren't the shoot 'em ups (though I do love them). The best episodes, like "In the Pale Moonlight," wrestle with moral quandaries. Sisko's was especially compelling because he strayed well over the line.
Heh, I can't tell if you're intentionally yanking my chain or you misread me.
I think the TNG movies tried to be action movies. And they were terrible. The new Trek tried to be an action movie, and succeeded.
I can totally understand people who think the new Trek fails to live up to the shows. I don't totally agree, but I get it.
But saying the new Trek fails compared to First Contact, or, god forbid, Insurrection? Malarkey. Rose colored glasses.
Hey now, I never mentioned Insurrection. I think it was an okay movie, but not one of Star Trek's best.
But if I was on a desert island and could only pick one Star Trek movie to watch forever (the island has power, and HD tv), the new Star Trek wouldn't be last, but it also wouldn't even be in the top 5.
Whether the old movies were trying to be high class action movies or not is debatable, but they were first and foremost about living up to the best traditions of the Star Trek franchise. I don't think the new Star Trek does that. I think it sacrifices that for the sake of flash over substance. And that's not looking back with rose colored glasses, it's looking back and remembering what made Star Trek Star Trek, and realizing you can't just put the name on a pile of CGI and call it Star Trek. The last Bond movie was awesome action AND a great Bond movie, but if we'd swapped out a couple characters and added a space ship, it wouldn't have been Star Trek. That's what this trailer feels like, and it's what a lot of the last movie felt like too.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
It looks horrible, like the first one. Another Star Trek film for people who never liked Star Trek.
Ugh, I really hate the trio of Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman. Two of these guys were behind Transformers, guys. Transformers.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Having never been a huge fan of TOS I don't know what it means that I liked the Star Trek...it wasn't just mindless action, they did a good job of capturing the feel of the characters, and then putting them in alternate universe so of course they were different. And I enjoyed it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Having never been a huge fan of TOS I don't know what it means that I liked the Star Trek...it wasn't just mindless action, they did a good job of capturing the feel of the characters, and then putting them in alternate universe so of course they were different. And I enjoyed it.
Yeah. I didn't like that either.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Just a couple notes: I think all the TNG Trek movies were terrible action movies, including First Contact.
Also, Lyr, DS9 is definitely the best series. By a wide margin, in my opinion. The lack of Roddenberry "idealism" (yuck) is a point in its favor, not a mark against it.
I agree! Especially compared to what we get today, none of the Star Trek movies are action-oriented romps. Other than the opening battle in First Contact, it's mostly very tense walking and talking, with the occasional phaser rifle being fired.
And it was still awesome. The newer movies are sacrificing everything that made Wrath of Khan and First Contact awesome to punch up the action. Apparently they haven't been able to find a balance between the two yet. I think the older movies did tension very well, but they all kept the action to an absolute minimum, in keeping with the show.
DS9 had more action than any other show, and it was high flying and impressive at times, but even then, my favorite episodes aren't the shoot 'em ups (though I do love them). The best episodes, like "In the Pale Moonlight," wrestle with moral quandaries. Sisko's was especially compelling because he strayed well over the line.
Heh, I can't tell if you're intentionally yanking my chain or you misread me.
I think the TNG movies tried to be action movies. And they were terrible. The new Trek tried to be an action movie, and succeeded.
I can totally understand people who think the new Trek fails to live up to the shows. I don't totally agree, but I get it.
But saying the new Trek fails compared to First Contact, or, god forbid, Insurrection? Malarkey. Rose colored glasses.
Hey now, I never mentioned Insurrection. I think it was an okay movie, but not one of Star Trek's best.
But if I was on a desert island and could only pick one Star Trek movie to watch forever (the island has power, and HD tv), the new Star Trek wouldn't be last, but it also wouldn't even be in the top 5.
Whether the old movies were trying to be high class action movies or not is debatable, but they were first and foremost about living up to the best traditions of the Star Trek franchise. I don't think the new Star Trek does that. I think it sacrifices that for the sake of flash over substance. And that's not looking back with rose colored glasses, it's looking back and remembering what made Star Trek Star Trek, and realizing you can't just put the name on a pile of CGI and call it Star Trek. The last Bond movie was awesome action AND a great Bond movie, but if we'd swapped out a couple characters and added a space ship, it wouldn't have been Star Trek. That's what this trailer feels like, and it's what a lot of the last movie felt like too.
The thing I'm disagreeing about is the extent to which the TNG movies actually live up to the traditions of the Trek franchise. I don't think they do. I think they try to make them action flicks, disregard lots of what makes Trek Trek, and basically just fail all around.
Insurrection certainly does. I'm reminded of part of the Red Letter Media review of it... He juxtaposes scenes of Picard arguing for intervening in Insurrection with Picard chastising Wesley for wanting to intervene on some planet in a TNG episode. Picard is literally arguing with himself.
In general his reviews of the TNG flicks are spot on, I think.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, again, Insurrection isn't a movie I'm really in a place to put up a serious defense for. So you can keep on that if you want but you'll have to find another sparring partner.
I don't think the majority of Star Trek fans would agree with you in general about the movies. And even if they agreed with you on the TNG movies, they wouldn't agree about the TOS movies. Personally I think Nemesis was a terrible movie was awesome graphics. I think Insurrection was an okay movie. I think Generations and First Contact were great. And then I think half the TOS movies are great as well.
There's more to these movies than just the dialogue and the CGI. There's the underlying story. The dialogue in the new Star Trek movie was fine, if completely forgettable. The CGI was fantastic, they had all the requisite number of things blowing up. But the story didn't feel like a Star Trek story to me. They were doing something else.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
To be fair, Star Trek was completely dead at the time the last movie came out. I mean, most people were saying that it wouldn't come back successfully for another 20 years. So at least they've kept it alive.
I think that there's a big difference between the movies and the TV shows (I loved the last movie, but I can understand the criticisms). Hopefully, somewhere in the next five to ten years we'll get 'real' Trek back in the form of a weekly TV show, and then we and the new fans who got into Trek from the new movies can all argue about how not enough stuff blows up.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Having never been a huge fan of TOS I don't know what it means that I liked the Star Trek...it wasn't just mindless action, they did a good job of capturing the feel of the characters, and then putting them in alternate universe so of course they were different. And I enjoyed it.
The alternate universe thing was one of the laziest things about the movie. It's such a blatant contrivance and an insult to the established cannon. Why not just truly reboot the Star Trek franchise? Oh yea, because then they couldn't shoehorn Lenard Nemoy in and would've had to be more original in coming up with new ideas. Just look at all the dumb stuff necessary for the time travel shenanigans to occur:
-The mighty Romulan empire can't handle their own business in regards to their own home world being in danger. -Red matter. -A villain being willing to go back in time to exact petty revenge rather than using that position to potentially save his home world, give his people endless technological advantages, and so on... -How do old Spock and Kirk meet? Purely by accident when Spock just happens to be at the exact random spot on the exact random planet that Kirk gets thrown to by Spock because the Enterprise doesn't have a brig for some reason.
You know, "Star Trek: Generations" gets a lot of criticism, but even it was a far better film. At least it had the stuff about the Nexus...you know, interesting, science-fictiony type of stuff. You absolutely understood why Dr. Soran would be willing to be so murderous to go back to that place. There's storytelling satisfaction to be had from that understanding. The 2009 film had none of that. Even the destruction of two major planets in the Star Trek canon is emotionally empty.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: It looks horrible, like the first one. Another Star Trek film for people who never liked Star Trek.
Ugh, I really hate the trio of Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman. Two of these guys were behind Transformers, guys. Transformers.
You could also argue that it was Transformers. Think about the source material for a live action 2 hour movie. Was anyone really expecting a logical story about robots turning into vehicles?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
There was absolutely nothing science fiction about the nexus.
Not that the new movie was the best, but I liked there idea for a new universe. That way fans like you can truly ignore it.
Rebooting it really would have paid no respect to canon, and they still would have had the same silly plot devices.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: It looks horrible, like the first one. Another Star Trek film for people who never liked Star Trek.
Ugh, I really hate the trio of Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman. Two of these guys were behind Transformers, guys. Transformers.
You could also argue that it was Transformers. Think about the source material for a live action 2 hour movie. Was anyone really expecting a logical story about robots turning into vehicles?
It's possible to take a banal premise and make something good from it. I grant that robot cars is a specially limiting premise but it would've been nice to be surprised, and Orci and Kurtzman are never the kind to surprise, except when they're desperate to and resort to blowing up planets.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: There was absolutely nothing science fiction about the nexus.
It was something fantastical and interesting. Something wondrous that the film tries to get you interested in (by having Whoopi Goldberg describe it and all.) Something so Star Trek.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: There was absolutely nothing science fiction about the nexus.
It was something fantastical and interesting. Something wondrous that the film tries to get you interested in (by having Whoopi Goldberg describe it and all.) Something so Star Trek.
I'm not sure what it means when Sa'eed and I agree, but a rip in space-time is absolutely CLASSIC Trek, and has a fairly long general SF history as well.
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: So at least they've kept it alive.
If this is alive, it was better off dead.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: -A villain being willing to go back in time to exact petty revenge rather than using that position to potentially save his home world, give his people endless technological advantages, and so on...
Doesn't the movie explain the time travel wasn't intentional? I mean, it was some sort of black hole mumbo jumbo, but Nero didn't intentionally go back in time. He got shoved there in his pursuit of old Spock.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: -A villain being willing to go back in time to exact petty revenge rather than using that position to potentially save his home world, give his people endless technological advantages, and so on...
Doesn't the movie explain the time travel wasn't intentional? I mean, it was some sort of black hole mumbo jumbo, but Nero didn't intentionally go back in time. He got shoved there in his pursuit of old Spock.
That's sort of the whole problem with the movie in a nutshell. A "true" Star Trek story would've focused on the ramifications of Nero destroying the timeline and what that might say about our conception of time and identity. There would've been some great, thoughtful discussion between Kirk and Spock (or Picard and Data, or Sisko and Kira, or even Janeway and Chakotay) about what this all means. But nooo. Instead, the Zombie Trek story we got ignores all of that potentially interesting existential stuff in favor of yet another revenge plot that doesn't make any sense when you think about it for more than two seconds. And then Orci and Kurtzman shoehorn in the destruction of Vulcan because they have no freakin' clue how to write anything with "stakes" unless it's a half-baked 9/11 callback.
As a counterexample: Dan_Frank, even if we grant that "First Contact" is kind of mediocre as an action movie, you have to grant our point that it made some real effort at emotional and philosophical resonance beyond the scary Borg bits. Think about those fantastic scenes wherein Picard is enthralled at touching the metal skin of the Phoenix, or where Lily sees Earth from space for the first time, or the actual moment of First Contact - there is absolutely nothing that even tries for that sort of transcendence in Abrams' "Star Trek." And its moments like those that define Trek at its best.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: So at least they've kept it alive.
If this is alive, it was better off dead.
Well, lots of people say this about the new Doctor Who - apparently it's a travesty and we should all be horrified that they have done this to such a wonderful show... And most people my age who had never even watched Doctor Who now love it, and their kids love it, and they go find the old series and love that too.
There were people who were upset that they updated Battlestar.
I remember a time around 1990 when my Treker mother had the same attitude to TNG (absolute travesty, nowhere as good as the original, run by idiots), and she has recovered from that and now loves it for what it is, which is, not TOS.
Would I have loved TOS if TNG and the sequels had not existed? Probably. Would it have seemed at all relevant to me in the 1990s, if it hadn't still been such a part of present popular culture? I'm not sure.
So it's not your Star Trek. But it means that Star Trek still exists and is loved by more people and a whole new generation who are seeking out the old episodes and discovering new frontiers all over again for the first time. Totally worth it, in my book.
Better alive and different than dead and forgotten. But I'm fine about disagreeing on this (and Seven/Chakotay! ).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Better alive and different than dead and forgotten.
It was not forgotten.
It may not have been bringing in enough money to make the franchise owners happy, but it was definitely not forgotten.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: That's sort of the whole problem with the movie in a nutshell. A "true" Star Trek story would've focused on the ramifications of Nero destroying the timeline and what that might say about our conception of time and identity. There would've been some great, thoughtful discussion between Kirk and Spock (or Picard and Data, or Sisko and Kira, or even Janeway and Chakotay) about what this all means.
I certainly wasn't debating this. I was just pointing out the folly in the statement the villian preferred to use time travel as opposed to any other choice. It may be an issue with the writing, but it's not an issue within the story as it is written.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were arguing otherwise. Your post was just a convenient jumping off point for what I wanted to say. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Better alive and different than dead and forgotten.
It was not forgotten.
It may not have been bringing in enough money to make the franchise owners happy, but it was definitely not forgotten.
*nods*
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I'm surprised that it seems like the recent Star Trek movie is unanimously disliked here. I thought I remembered it being pretty well-liked in the original thread when it was released and I remember OSC raving about it.
I've never seen any other Star Trek stories, so as a stand-alone for me, I loved it. I thought the action, writing, and acting were all excellent, even if there were a few plot holes. This trailer reminds me of the Star Trek trailer, focusing mostly on the action and epicness of it to draw in a large audience, with the movie then having alot more subtle qualities in it. I'm hoping Into Darkness is the same.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I'm surprised that it seems like the recent Star Trek movie is unanimously disliked here. I thought I remembered it being pretty well-liked in the original thread when it was released and I remember OSC raving about it.
I remember that too, lots of people enjoyed it. But then, that was in 2009. There were a lot more active members of Hatrack then. There seem to be about 20 of us now, at the most.
Yeah, I get that Star Trek wasn't forgotten about in 2009. Absolutely right. But by 2015, ten years after the last show went off the air, with nothing to attract new fans, I think it would have been nostalgia, and could have sat doing nothing for twenty years, and then been re-booted in a way that would have been much more offensive to everyone than what we have.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Chatting with some people before class this morning, it was pretty much universally agreed that new Star Trek is basically Star Trek for people who don't like Star Trek.
If you have to change something so substantially to get more people to watch it, you might as well call it something else. It's trying to have your cake and eat it too. They want the fanboys and fangirls to watch it, so they put the name on it. But they want a bigger audience, so they make it darker, add explosions, and make it generic but with well-known, established names so both sides are sated.
Doesn't work for me. I'm looking forward to a new Star Trek show set after Voyager. They're talking about it again. If they try to reset the series to turn the current movies into a TV show, I think it will be a flop. It worked for BSG because BSG was obscure. Most of us who like it had never seen the original. When they tried to make Stargate edgy and dark, it failed, miserably, because it lacked most of what made the original so compelling. I think it'll be the same here, especially since I think it would be hard to keep the production value the same on such an expensive project. They need to do the show they wanted to do after Enterprise before they decided to shelve the franchise for awhile.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: They're talking about it again. If they try to reset the series to turn the current movies into a TV show, I think it will be a flop.
Totally agree. I think the alt. universe is only useful for the specific story that they're telling. I wouldn't want to see a show about it.
I am so pleased that they're actually considering a show in the relatively near future, though.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Chatting with some people before class this morning, it was pretty much universally agreed that new Star Trek is basically Star Trek for people who don't like Star Trek.
Not true. It's also for people who like gaudy, stylized, visually sumptuous movies.
The look of that movie is amazing. On cinematography grounds alone, I love it. The only recent sci fi movie with more visual originality is Sunshine.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
What a bunch of snobs! It's pretty much universally agreed that the new Trek did an awesome job of going mainstream while retaining as much Star Trek as possible. And that was the opinion here.
I swear. Everyone here wants to be so contrary. It's like everyone who comes on here wants to use their "intellect" to take over the world. Sheesh.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: What a bunch of snobs! It's pretty much universally agreed that the new Trek did an awesome job of going mainstream while retaining as much Star Trek as possible. And that was the opinion here.
I swear. Everyone here wants to be so contrary. It's like everyone who comes on here wants to use their "intellect" to take over the world. Sheesh.
Nuh uh! Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: What a bunch of snobs!
If hating that they took something that I love and tore it to shreds, and then used some of the bloody pieces to build something altogether different makes me a snob, then I wear that label with pride.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The only recent sci fi movie with more visual originality is Sunshine.
That movie was NOT what I thought it was going to be. But I still liked it.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
The song from the ending outclassed the movie, and I really loved the movie. It was still playing when I started hunting it down on the internet.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: What a bunch of snobs! It's pretty much universally agreed that the new Trek did an awesome job of going mainstream while retaining as much Star Trek as possible. And that was the opinion here.
I swear. Everyone here wants to be so contrary. It's like everyone who comes on here wants to use their "intellect" to take over the world. Sheesh.
I liked the new movie too. It's not my favorite of the film franchise but I liked it well enough.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: What a bunch of snobs!
If hating that they took something that I love and tore it to shreds, and then used some of the bloody pieces to build something altogether different makes me a snob, then I wear that label with pride.
I thought you hadn't seen it?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not all the way through.
I have an opinion about 50 Shades too, and I've only read bits of that as well.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That's different; 50 Shades sucks. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I liked the new ST, not only was it entertaining to the extent that I didn't fall into any minor plot holes, but it had a cool message: no matter the time line, our beloved crew belong at the helm of the Enterprise, saving the galaxy and having adventures.
My dad cried when old Spock was getting all sentimental with new Jim.
One of the major things that the new movie got right from the original was: it was fun. And yes, it could have had a deeper meaning as often ST does, but I have to agree that all this hating reeks of snobbery.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: What a bunch of snobs! It's pretty much universally agreed that the new Trek did an awesome job of going mainstream while retaining as much Star Trek as possible. And that was the opinion here.
There's probably a nicer way to put this, but I'm afraid that many Trek fans are more interested in the franchise for its own sake (with all its hallmarks intact) than they are in watching good movies and TV. (That's fine, I sometimes get in the same mood regarding Star Wars--but I'm not proud of it.)
I would generally judge that anyone with a positive opinion of Voyager or Enterprise is one of the people I'm talking about, though there are exceptions to every rule where aesthetic preference is concerned.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: . . . but I have to agree that all this hating reeks of snobbery.
I take umbrage at this, sir! I challenge thee to a du-well!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: What a bunch of snobs! It's pretty much universally agreed that the new Trek did an awesome job of going mainstream while retaining as much Star Trek as possible. And that was the opinion here.
There's probably a nicer way to put this, but I'm afraid that many Trek fans are more interested in the franchise for its own sake (with all its hallmarks intact) than they are in watching good movies and TV. (That's fine, I sometimes get in the same mood regarding Star Wars--but I'm not proud of it.)
I would generally judge that anyone with a positive opinion of Voyager or Enterprise is one of the people I'm talking about, though there are exceptions to every rule where aesthetic preference is concerned.
Voyager had some good episodes and one or two good characters. And sure following DS9 was a pretty hard act.
But in general? Meh. You'd think it would have lowered the threshold for Enterprise, but that was a big pile of boring.
And as far as being a snog goes...I'm a total Star Trek snob. I'm a LOTR snob and a Star Wars snob. And I have no problem with that at all.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: . . . but I have to agree that all this hating reeks of snobbery.
I take umbrage at this, sir! I challenge thee to a du-well!
Phasers at dawn?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: . . . but I have to agree that all this hating reeks of snobbery.
I take umbrage at this, sir! I challenge thee to a du-well!
Phasers at dawn?
I accept these terms.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
What setting?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
As the challenger, I forgo the right to select venue to my opponent.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Set phasers to annoy!
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
New movie looks awesome. The last one was superb. A new take for a new generation, and it works better than pretty much every other reboot around.
I can't wait!
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
One thing that was so characteristic about the Star Trek TV shows was the utopianism of Gene R. Roddenberry. People in the future are different: smarter, more driven, self-improving, interested in science and knowledge for its own sake. This led to some problems on the early seasons of Next Generation as everyone in it was so uptight, but overall it was one of the most distinctive and interesting things about this universe, and it's what characters like Janeway, Wesley, Data and Julian Bashir and Picard have in common. They all speak intelligently, in a quasi-theatrical fashion. When Kirk in the 2009 film says "why are you even talking to me, man" to Captain Pike...a part of me died. What a douche.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I liked the new Trek movie. I'm on record, despite some glaring plot holes and the fact that the Romulan's actions only truly make sense if you read the 4-comic mini-series that came out just before the movie. And the glares on the bridge were not only annoying, they were potentially hazardous on a military vessel. But mostly they hit the right sense of action, humor, science fiction, drama and wonder that made me fall in love with the show in the first place. After several sub-par movies and a very disappointing "Enterprise," "Star Trek" was sorely needed.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:And the glares on the bridge were not only annoying, they were potentially hazardous on a military vessel.
A number of people have complained about that lens flare look. I couldn't disagree more. I think it lent visual energy to the utopian atmosphere that Sa'eed thinks was missing from the film (but I think was there in spades). And it was beautiful and unique.
I want to see more lens flare in the next one. The whole movie should basically be all lens flare.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: When Kirk in the 2009 film says "why are you even talking to me, man" to Captain Pike...a part of me died. What a douche.
As opposed to the original Kirk, who had been known to use the scientifically accurate and theoretically valid term 'Double dumbass on you'.
It was the 'on you', however, that really made it art.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I will admit to enjoying the new movie myself as well. But I wasn't particularly a huge fan of the all of the various series. More of a casual TNG fan myself.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:A new take for a new generation
If I were in that new generation, I'd be insulted.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I too would be insulted if Tom was in -my- generation. Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
I was never a huge Star Trek fan to begin with - although I've probably seen every episode of TNG and most of TOS, DS9 (I'll throw in with the others who noted that as their favorite), and Voyager and probably half the films - but I totally get what the critics of the new film are getting at.
The new film had characters with the same names, but it didn't "feel" like Star Trek much to me. The storyline, tone and world they inhabited (I know, it's an alternate universe) just felt... off.
That said, I'm not a hater - it's probably Orci and Kurtzman's BEST work. I guess I would say I view it as officially licensed and well funded fan-fic.
And I'll be there for this sequel. Mainly for Cumberbatch, Quinto playing Spock, Pegg playing Scotty and did I mention Cumberbatch?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I liked the new Trek movie. I'm on record, despite some glaring plot holes and the fact that the Romulan's actions only truly make sense if you read the 4-comic mini-series that came out just before the movie. And the glares on the bridge were not only annoying, they were potentially hazardous on a military vessel. But mostly they hit the right sense of action, humor, science fiction, drama and wonder that made me fall in love with the show in the first place. After several sub-par movies and a very disappointing "Enterprise," "Star Trek" was sorely needed.
Could you explain the comic you're mentioning? I've never heard of it. What's the plot?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I liked the new Trek movie. I'm on record, despite some glaring plot holes and the fact that the Romulan's actions only truly make sense if you read the 4-comic mini-series that came out just before the movie. And the glares on the bridge were not only annoying, they were potentially hazardous on a military vessel. But mostly they hit the right sense of action, humor, science fiction, drama and wonder that made me fall in love with the show in the first place. After several sub-par movies and a very disappointing "Enterprise," "Star Trek" was sorely needed.
Could you explain the comic you're mentioning? I've never heard of it. What's the plot?
Star Trek Countdown. It is pretty fun. Tells the story of how Nero and Spock came to the new timeline. Acts as a TNG story as well.
There is also Spock Reflections, sort of a prequel to Countdown, about old Spock moving Kirk's body to his boyhood farm and reflecting on his early years.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
Cumberbatch is playing John Harrison?!
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Apparently there was a 'Harrison' in the episode where Khan first appears.
Still can't believe it's Khan, though. Cumberbatch is such an incredibly white guy. I mean, seriously. He and Montalban have no resemblance whatsoever. Unless he's genetically modified himself to look different - that could be amusing.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I was really hoping for Gary Mitchell
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Could Peter Weller be Khan? Maybe the movie is about Harrison freeing Khan from the sleeper ship? For a semi- big name, Weller is surprisingly absent from the trailer.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Carol Marcus it is.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
So we really are just going with "remaking old episodes/movies"? Okay then.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Just saw a bootleg of the first nine minutes shown before the hobbit. Still doesn't reveal who he is but it does kinda sound like Khan. I was really hoping for something new there but oh well, we shall see.
I would link to it but it has already been yanked.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
*Possible SPOILERS for nine minute prologue*
I really liked this. There was a good feeling of knowing exactly who these characters are (specifically the people they have become in this universe, not necessarily exactly who they were before, and yet they are still recognizable - at least to me). And I liked the fact that rural England still looks pretty much the same, all green and birdsong-y and not totally concrete - London being a little bit taller than it currently is.
Mickey Smith! Someone is a Doctor Who fan with that casting.
Loved the red planet and the painted looking aliens. They really had a sixties vibe about them. The sense of goofy adventure that the original series had was there too - sometimes it was all philosophy and the meaning of life, sometimes they just got into scrapes.
The underwater reveal moment made me think - 'hey, that's somewhere they really haven't gone before'. There was a sense of something familiar and something new mixed together so I'm feeling a lot more positive now than I was when I saw that first trailer.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Just finished reading the official comic prequel.
These are definitely spoilers for the comics, talk of movie is pure conjecture.
After reading that, and the ongoing series, I can definitely assume that some type of Section 31 is going to play a part. A rogue group in Starfleet intelligence kept being brought up. There was even a brief scene where they try to recruit Sulu, but never go back to it. Pike seems to know about them.
Mudd's daughter is half Bajoran, it will be neat if she is in the movie. Kirk keeps her ship, saying it may come in handy. I am assuming it will.
Cumberpatch is definitely not Robert April, but Carol Marcus' dad (Peter Weller) served under April.
Orci and Kurtzman definitely love the franchise, their stories in the two Countdown series show that. I think in the first movie they had to give up some of that for the powers that be.
Lindeloff said in an interview that Abrams was really looking at how the Enterprise works, to make it more like hard science fiction. I hope he is not just full of hot air.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm giving up on Star Trek until Abrams gives up the reins.
In the mean time, I'm making my own Star Trek series, and it's going to be awesome. I figure by the time Abrams is done with it and they want to put something back on the air, I'll be ready when CBS calls me.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
didn't like the first movie. this one looks cool though.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
As a non-Trekkie whose sole experience with the franchise was the 2009 movie, I could take it or leave it for the sequel.
But they're debuting the Ender's Game trailer in front of Star Trek into Darkness, so I'll take it.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
).
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)