Star Trek Into Darkness [ SPOILERS FROM POST 452 ]

Scanlas The 2nd · 08-01-2012 7:30pm

Lantus wrote: »

G-Money wrote: »

I think First Contact had a great opening theme song and the end one wasn't too bad either for obvious reasons

FC was a great movie until you realise that the borg were stupid by not just going back in time in any old quiet corner of the universe and flying to earth rather than rocking up on it's doorstep when there were dozens of federation ships to shoot at it. plot hole...........................

I can still enjoy the star trek movies but they just didn't translate to the big screen that well. Too many of the TNG movies are reliant on time travel gone bad or storys that would of made a passable 45 minute tv show.

Or they could just send a few more of their thousands of ships and guarantee victory. It's stupid really, time travel should only be an accidental rare anomaly.

don ramo · 09-01-2012 2:38am

yay more post production 3D conversion, :mad::mad:

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/01/08/j-j-abrams-star-trek-2-in-3-d/

wonder what a 3D lense flare will look like;):D:rolleyes:

Sad Professor · 09-01-2012 4:39am

I delighted that Abrams can see 3D for the waste of time that it is. He mentioned shooting some of the film in IMAX instead, though I'm not sure what benefit that would have in a CGI heavy film like this.

norrie rugger · 09-01-2012 12:18pm

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Or they could just send a few more of their thousands of ships and guarantee victory.

Read the Star Trek: Destiny trilogy and you get a feeling what it would be like, to have just that.

OldeCinemaSoz · 09-01-2012 5:22pm

Being an unashamed TOS fan i'd give a finger...or even me arm out of this sling...for a big screen adaptation of THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE.

no wonder it won an emmy. i won't get started on CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER. Reverential. Although i'm not too fond of the other one AMOK TIME.

thorbarry · 09-01-2012 11:51pm

don ramo wrote: »

yay more post production 3D conversion, :mad::mad:

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/01/08/j-j-abrams-star-trek-2-in-3-d/

That doesnt annoy me at all. I'll just go see it in 2d

don ramo · 10-01-2012 12:46am

thorbarry wrote: »

That doesnt annoy me at all. I'll just go see it in 2d

as will i, but i hate when they shoot a scene that is purely meant for 3D, and looks retarded in 2D,

thats one of my main problems with 3D, some of angles and effects they use look stupid and amateurish in 2D, it looks like the director didnt know what he was doing, and relalistically your only gonna watch a film once in 3D and only in the cinema, so there taking away the rewatchability of the film,

Pride Fighter · 10-01-2012 3:22am

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I am not a Trekkie but frankly I really don't care about why a mining ship was heavily armed :pac: Id certainly acknowledge a few plotholes and cheap contrivances - quickest promotions ever. But are your issues with the film as a Trek fan or are they with the film itself? You can nitpick scifi to death, but IMO it is never a rewarding exercise.

Undiscovered Country is better than 2 of them.

Antar Bolaeisk · 10-01-2012 11:48am

So..... when did this get pushed back to next year, I though it was meant to be 2012?

I'm sad now.

(for the record, I think Trek 2009 was quite a good film, it did all the actiony and explodey bits extremely well but it was also ridiculously stupid so it just wasn't a good Star Trek film) - longtime trek fan

senordingdong · 22-01-2012 11:17pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

I disagree. I was a very big Star Trek fan and I loved Abrams's film. It's not perfect. I can see all the little errors and annoyances that the purists see, but the positives outweigh the negatives. Star Trek was as good as dead until the Abrams film. Star Trek needed a good reboot and that's what he gave it.

I was bitterly disappointed by this reboot.

It looked good, full of fancy visuals and what nots but the movie was completely lacking in any depth.
It was pure style over substance.
The plot was based entirely on time travel which is the lowest common denominator of all sci fi stories.
Whatsmore, being accidentally sent back in time after a natural disaster (for which no-one was to blame) I don't understand how Nero could be seeking revenge. As if warning his planet of the impending disaster was not a more intelligent course of action.
With the exception of Kirk and Spock, there was no character development and more than a few of the scenes didn't gel particularly well together.

And lets not forget the watering down for mainstream audiences and the fact that modern Hollywood now has free reign on the Star Trek name.

pixelburp · 22-01-2012 11:25pm

I always got the impression the sole purpose of the 'plot' was simply to put Kirk into the Captain's chair of the Enterprise, and everything else - including basic logic & common sense - came secondary in the writers' priorities. It was all so clumsily written, it would have been less subtle if the script simply had a giant neon sign hanging over Kirk's head reading 'Destiny'

OldeCinemaSoz · 23-01-2012 1:22am

I really liked Bruce Greenwood's take on
Captain Christopher Pike.

In retrospect, the film wasn't that bad at all considering what
came after TOS...a few of TNG episodes excluded?!?!

"punch it!"

norrie rugger · 23-01-2012 10:42am

OldeCinemaSoz wrote: »

I really liked Bruce Greenwood's take on
Captain Christopher Pike.

"punch it!"

Agreed

Scanlas The 2nd · 23-01-2012 2:57pm

senordingdong wrote: »

I was bitterly disappointed by this reboot.

It looked good, full of fancy visuals and what nots but the movie was completely lacking in any depth.
It was pure style over substance.
The plot was based entirely on time travel which is the lowest common denominator of all sci fi stories.
Whatsmore, being accidentally sent back in time after a natural disaster (for which no-one was to blame) I don't understand how Nero could be seeking revenge. As if warning his planet of the impending disaster was not a more intelligent course of action.
With the exception of Kirk and Spock, there was no character development and more than a few of the scenes didn't gel particularly well together.

And lets not forget the watering down for mainstream audiences and the fact that modern Hollywood now has free reign on the Star Trek name.

+1 The storyline really was vacuous tripe with very little thought put into it. Shockingly bad really. Time travel ffs and with so many plot holes it's ridiculous. Can't decide if Simon peg or the story line were worse. Absolutely despise the way they made him a stupid jokey character for cheap laughs from the mainstream audience.

norrie rugger · 23-01-2012 2:59pm

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

+1 The storyline really was vacuous tripe with very little thought put into it. Shockingly bad really. Time travel ffs and with so many plot holes it's ridiculous. Can't decide if Simon peg or the story line were worse. Absolutely despise the way they made him a stupid jokey character for cheap laughs from the mainstream audience.

He is to the new Trek as Gimli was to The Lord of the Rings films

senordingdong · 23-01-2012 3:10pm

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

+1 The storyline really was vacuous tripe with very little thought put into it. Shockingly bad really. Time travel ffs and with so many plot holes it's ridiculous. Can't decide if Simon peg or the story line were worse. Absolutely despise the way they made him a stupid jokey character for cheap laughs from the mainstream audience.

And he claimed to be a fan ffs!

stevenmu · 23-01-2012 4:29pm

norrie rugger wrote: »

He is to the new Trek as Gimli was to The Lord of the Rings films

There was a few times I though he was going to be the new Jar Jar Binks. It never got quite that bad, but it was a worry.

FutureGuy · 25-02-2012 11:00pm

First unofficial photos have surfaced on mtv and other sites. Obviously spoilers are a plenty!

Mickeroo · 25-02-2012 11:13pm

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

+1 The storyline really was vacuous tripe with very little thought put into it. Shockingly bad really. Time travel ffs and with so many plot holes it's ridiculous. Can't decide if Simon peg or the story line were worse. Absolutely despise the way they made him a stupid jokey character for cheap laughs from the mainstream audience.

I don't get this view, I mean its not like the old trek films were sophisticated affairs and its not the first instance time travel was utilised. The plot was considerably better than I ever expected it to be and the characters were a lot more fleshed out than they ever were in the other movies plus it set up Kirk and Spock's friendship very well. THe best thing about the time travel was that it achknowledged the timeline of the old movies had occurred by having nimoy show up yet still manage to reboot from scratch in a way while still being canon in many ways. I've always loved Star Trek and I don't think I've ever flat out enjoyed a Star Trek film as much as Abrams one.

WhatAMelon · 25-02-2012 11:21pm

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

+1 The storyline really was vacuous tripe with very little thought put into it. Shockingly bad really. Time travel ffs and with so many plot holes it's ridiculous. Can't decide if Simon peg or the story line were worse. Absolutely despise the way they made him a stupid jokey character for cheap laughs from the mainstream audience.

This. It was like a slapstick teenage action comedy. American Pie mets Buck Rogers or something. The villan was sketchy. Simon Pegg being pulled around through glass engine pipes just about summed it up. Kirk from cadet to captain in a week. I half expected that Alison Hannigan girl to turn up some way through. Sorry but trekkie or not, the film was truly dire.

nyarlothothep · 26-02-2012 12:45am

WhatAMelon wrote: »

This. It was like a slapstick teenage action comedy. American Pie mets Buck Rogers or something. The villan was sketchy. Simon Pegg being pulled around through glass engine pipes just about summed it up. Kirk from cadet to captain in a week. I half expected that Alison Hannigan girl to turn up some way through. Sorry but trekkie or not, the film was truly dire.

Her presence would have improved the film slightly. I thought the film was a mixture of good and bad. It made star trek fresh again, but there were obvious plot holes and things which defied basic sense, like kirk going from cadet to captain in 2 hours. They could have at least had a montage at the end where he's made captain after many years, it wouldn't have been hard to do.

FutureGuy · 26-02-2012 8:18pm

The amount of complaints in general about the previous film, despite the fact that it was one of the best rated of that year and received 95% on Rotten Tomatoes., is unreal! I thought it was great!

The ratings and word of mouth speaks volumes about the previous film. I have lost count of the number of people who had never seen a Star Trek film/disliked the franchise who thoroughly enjoyed it.

Anyways, this thread is for the sequel so hopefully there will be more news soon!

senordingdong · 26-02-2012 11:51pm

Word of mouth could tell you that Jedward are a fantastical musical act.

A second glance would show you otherwise.

Mickeroo · 26-02-2012 11:56pm

senordingdong wrote: »

Word of mouth could tell you that Jedward are a fantastical musical act.

A second glance would show you otherwise.

If you rely on music listeners ages 12 and under for your word of mouth, sure I guess it could.

Pepe LeFrits · 27-02-2012 12:38am

The new film was the best thing to happen to Star Trek in a long time. Breathed new life into a franchise that had been hell bent on self annihilation for years.

Goldstein · 28-02-2012 5:19pm

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

The new film was the best thing to happen to Star Trek in a long time.

It was certainly in a glut and guilty of stagnation and on the small screen an over-reliance upon past glories instead of looking forwards and evolving which is critical for any piece of science fiction work. Most of the TNG films were doomed by extraordinarily poorly chosen scripts. The sheer amount of quality, cerebral and exciting novels out there still being produced is staggering. All of the hard work has already been done. It's was all out there waiting and Paramount repeatedly ignored all of it making inept decision after inept decision.

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Breathed new life into a franchise that had been hell bent on self annihilation for years.

An oft-regurgitated line. The critical thing is: it didn't. What Orci, Kurzman and Abrams did was take popular references and names from a science fiction franchise with a then 43 year history and made a new action franchise based around these well known props with the badge tacked on. Granted the franchise needed rejuvination. I'm just don't think the Roland Emmerich inspired action movie designed to appeal primarily to the ADHD transformers movies crowd was the best way to improve things.

All you have to do is look at Ron Moore's BSG (And pretty much everything he ever had to do with TNG and DS9) to see the magnificent results of what can happen when someone with vision, talent, drive and respect grasps the gilded opportunities that reimaginings represent.

Mickeroo · 28-02-2012 5:52pm

Goldstein wrote: »

An oft-regurgitated line. The critical thing is: it didn't. What Orci, Kurzman and Abrams did was take popular references and names from a science fiction franchise with a then 43 year history and made a new action franchise based around these well known props with the badge tacked on. Granted the franchise needed rejuvination. I'm just don't think the Roland Emmerich inspired action movie designed to appeal primarily to the ADHD transformers movies crowd was the best way to improve things.

All you have to do is look at Ron Moore's BSG (And pretty much everything he ever had to do with TNG and DS9) to see the magnificent results of what can happen when someone with vision, talent, drive and respect grasps the gilded opportunities that reimaginings represent.

I don't think just because there's action scenes makes it any less of a sci-fi movie than any of the other trek films. The script was pretty good I thought, comparing it to Transformers is a massive disservice, if the transformers had the same care and attention put to them as Star Trek they would have been great. None of the other trek movies were particularly cerebral affairs so I don't see why they would have gone that route. The movies have always been a lot broader then the tv series' in the past. Star Trek IV was full of goofy humour and its probably the best of the movies next to Wrath of Khan.

Mickeroo · 28-02-2012 6:06pm

here's some behind the scene footage from the new movie - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/53916

Pepe LeFrits · 28-02-2012 8:21pm

Goldstein wrote: »

An oft-regurgitated line. The critical thing is: it didn't, so much so that there's another one on the way. What Orci, Kurzman and Abrams did was take popular references and names from a science fiction franchise with a then 43 year history and made a new action franchise based around these well known props with the badge tacked on a film for that franchise with action that was actually good. Granted the franchise needed rejuvination. I'm just don't think the Roland Emmerich inspired accessible, likeable science fiction action movie designed to appeal primarily to the ADHD transformers movies crowd general public was the best way to improve things.

Fixed.

The whole notion that Star Trek is somehow meant to be high-brow, philosophical science fiction and that Abrams shat on it by making an action movie is miles off the mark. Star Trek films haven't been that on the big screen for a long time and on television even longer. Abrams just did it well and got rid of all the irrelevant geekery that masqueraded as sophistication.

pixelburp · 28-02-2012 8:35pm

Goldstein wrote: »

It was certainly in a glut and guilty of stagnation and on the small screen an over-reliance upon past glories instead of looking forwards and evolving which is critical for any piece of science fiction work. Most of the TNG films were doomed by extraordinarily poorly chosen scripts. The sheer amount of quality, cerebral and exciting novels out there still being produced is staggering. All of the hard work has already been done. It's was all out there waiting and Paramount repeatedly ignored all of it making inept decision after inept decision.

It seems to me, as a non-Trekkie looking into the mythology, that it was the fans who ultimately doomed Trek as a viable franchise in the first place; killed it with kindness as it were. That an overenthusiastic fanbase, who demanded slavish continuity and shoutouts, made creativity and expansion next to impossible for the series. Who was going to dare touch the sacred cow and risk alienating (hoho) their cast-iron audience? Nobody, that's who, until the franchise had finally gone past the point of no return & finally disappeared up its own orifice .

It doesn't matter how cerebral spin-off novels are; they're all subservient to the parent show, as they should be. And with respect, outside of Picard fretting over the Prime Directive every now and again, I found 90% of Star Trek to be either cheesy & camp (100% of the original series), or else stagy & po-faced, high on it's own sense of worthiness. At least the new movie kept the former, whilst dispensing with the latter (even if overall I hated the new film)

Galvasean · 29-02-2012 1:56am

Mickeroo wrote: »

I don't get this view, I mean its not like the old trek films were sophisticated affairs and its not the first instance time travel was utilised. The plot was considerably better than I ever expected it to be and the characters were a lot more fleshed out than they ever were in the other movies plus it set up Kirk and Spock's friendship very well. THe best thing about the time travel was that it achknowledged the timeline of the old movies had occurred by having nimoy show up yet still manage to reboot from scratch in a way while still being canon in many ways. I've always loved Star Trek and I don't think I've ever flat out enjoyed a Star Trek film as much as Abrams one.

This. You'd swear Star Trek never had it's goofy moments before the new film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QycFLKiZOpk

norrie rugger · 29-02-2012 11:21am

Galvasean wrote: »

This. You'd swear Star Trek never had it's goofy moments before the new film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QycFLKiZOpk

Yet the underlying theme, of that episode, was that mankind is moving beyond the need for gods.

Goldstein · 29-02-2012 8:19pm

pixelburp wrote: »

It seems to me, as a non-Trekkie looking into the mythology, that it was the fans who ultimately doomed Trek as a viable franchise in the first place; killed it with kindness as it were. That an overenthusiastic fanbase, who demanded slavish continuity and shoutouts, made creativity and expansion next to impossible for the series. Who was going to dare touch the sacred cow and risk alienating (hoho) their cast-iron audience? Nobody, that's who, until the franchise had finally gone past the point of no return & finally disappeared up its own orifice .

You don't make mistakes as titanic as the ones Paramount made with 90% of the TNG films and Enterprise and then come back and blame the fans when their stupidity blew up in their faces. When Nemesis bombed they tried the cop out that "the fanbase has disappeared". Strange that Ron Moore never seemed to have any problem finding them before, during and after Nemesis. The fans aren't the ones that green light the films.

Where Paramount failed however, hundreds of writers did not and today there are well over 600 novels expanding across all iterations of the franchise, well beyond where the shows & movies left off, many branching off in completely new tangents such as the Titan, Stargazer, Empire, Vanguard etc series. If the fans are just pedantic moaners, then who is buying (and accepting, even enthusiastically embracing) all of this new material?

OldeCinemaSoz · 29-02-2012 8:31pm

I know The Kirk has had his problems...

but it would be nice for THE PRODUCERS to
bring him back in a GUEST ROLE...

Galvasean · 01-03-2012 1:16am

norrie rugger wrote: »

Yet the underlying theme, of that episode, was that mankind is moving beyond the need for gods.

I know that (and as an atheist one would think that message would appeal to me), but it's still an incredibly camp/goofy/silly addition to the Star Trek franchise. One of many.

norrie rugger · 01-03-2012 8:44am

Galvasean wrote: »

I know that (and as an atheist one would think that message would appeal to me), but it's still an incredibly cgoofy/silly addition to the Star Trek franchise. One of many.

You have to take into account that it was a low budget 60's show, with heavy network interference. Cheesey campness was the request, from the executives, yet they still managed to deliver radical social commentary.

Half black and half white warring race, showing stupidity of racism
Interracial kiss
Who mourns, above
Asian, Russian, African and even alien bridge officers
Prime Directive advocating non interference or other cultures

Show me any of that, in the new show?

Myrddin · 01-03-2012 12:32pm

norrie rugger wrote: »

Half black and half white warring race, showing stupidity of racism
Interracial kiss
Who mourns, above
Asian, Russian, African and even alien bridge officers
Prime Directive advocating non interference or other cultures

Show me any of that, in the new show?

Jersey Shore. Oh no, wait

seraphimvc · 01-03-2012 1:07pm

norrie rugger wrote: »

Half black and half white warring race, showing stupidity of racism
Interracial kiss
Who mourns, above
Asian, Russian, African and even alien bridge officers
Prime Directive advocating non interference or other cultures

Show me any of that, in the new show?

i am confused here. racism? what?

On topic: i LOVE the reboot so much. i honestly dont know much about star trek but i went with 2 friends who should be considered as a (moderate) star trek fans and we all love it. i watched it for at least 3 times (thanks to tv!) and i highly recommend it to anyone who hasnt watched it. it is certainly not perfect but at this year and age i appreciate anyone who can make a movie with smooth actions plus good a script that consists of interesting characters development - it is a good movie practice in the end of the day (unlike that godforbidden michael bay money and time waster >_>).

Myrddin · 01-03-2012 1:11pm

seraphimvc wrote: »

i am confused here. racism? what?

It confronted the pointless stupidity of racism with this example.

There were two kinds of these people, one who were black on the right/white on left, & another who were white on the right & black on the left. Its years since I seen the episode but I think they were wiping each other out & fighting wars over the differences in their colour. Remind you of anyone?

Galvasean · 01-03-2012 1:23pm

norrie rugger wrote: »

You have to take into account that it was a low budget 60's show, with heavy network interference. Cheesey campness was the request, from the executives, yet they still managed to deliver radical social commentary.

Half black and half white warring race, showing stupidity of racism
Interracial kiss
Who mourns, above
Asian, Russian, African and even alien bridge officers
Prime Directive advocating non interference or other cultures

Show me any of that, in the new show?

In fairness to the newer at least the new movie tried the whole "Even though I'm from the future I cant tell you everything because I don't want you messing up the time stream too much" angle, which was a reasonably mature thing to put into what is essentially an action movie.
Wait, are you saying the new movie lacked ethnic minorities and aliens working for the federation????

Mickeroo · 01-03-2012 3:36pm

norrie rugger wrote: »

You have to take into account that it was a low budget 60's show, with heavy network interference. Cheesey campness was the request, from the executives, yet they still managed to deliver radical social commentary.

Half black and half white warring race, showing stupidity of racism
Interracial kiss
Who mourns, above
Asian, Russian, African and even alien bridge officers
Prime Directive advocating non interference or other cultures

Show me any of that, in the new show?

What has that got to do with the new movie? There was bugger all social commentary in most of 10 movies preceeding the last one (open to correction on this to be fair

). There was a save the whales message in Star Trek IV I suppose, but that film as much a goofy comedy as much as Star Trek was an action movie and it was still a damn good trek film I thought. The more cerebral sci-fi has always been more the realm of the TV shows as far as I can see.

I don't think it needed social commentary to elevate it tbh, learning kirk and spocks origins and seeing what makes their relationship tick was enough. It was pretty fookin poignant at times too, especially when old spock and young spock meet. What it lacked in social commentary it made up for in character imho.

norrie rugger · 01-03-2012 4:30pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

What has that got to do with the new movie? There was bugger all social commentary in most of 10 movies preceeding the last one (open to correction on this to be fair ). There was a save the whales message in Star Trek IV I suppose, but that film as much a goofy comedy as much as Star Trek was an action movie and it was still a damn good trek film I thought. The more cerebral sci-fi has always been more the realm of the TV shows as far as I can see.

I don't think it needed social commentary to elevate it tbh, learning kirk and spocks origins and seeing what makes their relationship tick was enough. It was pretty fookin poignant at times too, especially when old spock and young spock meet. What it lacked in social commentary it made up for in character imho.

It was in response to the comment that Galva made regarding the show being a cheese fest. It was but it also aimed to be more than that.
The pre JJ Trek were built around this environment.
Also the films have been let downs a lot of the time but at least stuck to the general Trekness of Trek
I will say again that I like the New film, quite a lot, but for me it is "Space Journey: Action Film" rather than a "Star Trek" film

*edit* Insurrection was, to me, about a military power using its clout to gather a natural resourse, at the expense of a native population. Hmmm. (Personally my favourite Trek-Trek film, followed by First Contact as an Action-Trek Film)

norrie rugger · 01-03-2012 4:34pm

Galvasean wrote: »

In fairness to the newer at least the new movie tried the whole "Even though I'm from the future I cant tell you everything because I don't want you messing up the time stream too much" angle, which was a reasonably mature thing to put into what is essentially an action movie.
Wait, are you saying the new movie lacked ethnic minorities and aliens working for the federation????

When did they do this?
Old Spock wants young Spock to experience the developing friendship, as a worthwhile exercise.

Shur the timeline is blown to bits, with Vulcan gone!

Mickeroo · 01-03-2012 5:47pm

norrie rugger wrote: »

It was in response to the comment that Galva made regarding the show being a cheese fest. It was but it also aimed to be more than that.
The pre JJ Trek were built around this environment.
Also the films have been let downs a lot of the time but at least stuck to the general Trekness of Trek
I will say again that I like the New film, quite a lot, but for me it is "Space Journey: Action Film" rather than a "Star Trek" film

*edit* Insurrection was, to me, about a military power using its clout to gather a natural resourse, at the expense of a native population. Hmmm. (Personally my favourite Trek-Trek film, followed by First Contact as an Action-Trek Film)

I get where you're coming from with the Trekness thing. as much as I flat out loved the new film i did think it was a Star Trek film made to appeal to a broader audience than the rest i.e. a Star Trek movie which people who don't like Star Trek might like. I didn't see that as such a bad thing though, I always thought to a lesser extent Star Tek IV and to a much lesser extent First Contact fitted this mould too, they would be my two favourite trek movies previous to Abrams one along with Wrath of khan probably. Insurrection always felt like a long episode of TNG to me but not a bad film by any means.

Zubeneschamali · 01-03-2012 5:59pm

I always liked Star Trek: The Motionless Picture, which was made back when 2001: A Space Odyssey was the definitive SF movie.

The Anniversary Special Edition Director's Cut With 9 Seconds of Previously Unheard Sound Effects is even better.

Sad Professor · 01-03-2012 6:02pm

It's not as if pre-Abrams Trek was the same. It went through many different permutations over the years. And even Roddenberry's own vision of it wasn't always consistent. Meyer is often held up by the fans as a hero, but Roddenberry wasn't too keen on his very militaristic take on the franchise. Even the fans have serious issues with his two films. And yet if not for Meyer there might not be a Star Trek today. Personally I don't think Abram's take on it is any more of a departure from "Star Trek" than the Wrath of Khan was. The only difference is there was a lot less history to the franchise back then, where as today everyone has their own ideas about what Trek is and isn't.

CharAdriel · 11-03-2012 7:53am

Was never really a Star Trek fan. Preferred Star Wars myself. However, the newest Star Trek movie was better than I thought it would be. So I'm a little dissappointed that it's taken them so long to come out with the next movie.

OldeCinemaSoz · 16-03-2012 11:25pm

The Shat seems to be doing well for himself on tv.

It'd be nice for him to do a few minutes in the next
ST film.

I doubt it though.

Nervous Wreck · 17-03-2012 12:13am

CharAdriel wrote: »

Was never really a Star Trek fan. Preferred Star Wars myself. However, the newest Star Trek movie was better than I thought it would be. So I'm a little dissappointed that it's taken them so long to come out with the next movie.

I'd rather a 4 year wait for another great movie than a 2 year wait for a letdown tbh.

bnt · 30-04-2012 11:51pm

FirstShowing is reporting on several sources who appear to know who Cumberbatch's villain will be:

Khan Noonien Singh

. Well, we can't accuse JJ of playing it safe, I suppose.

Star Trek Into Darkness [** SPOILERS FROM POST 452 **]

Comments

Star Trek Into Darkness [ SPOILERS FROM POST 452 ]