Star Trek Into Darkness [ SPOILERS FROM POST 452 ]

Otacon · 01-05-2012 9:34am

bnt wrote: »

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.

That would be a huge risk. Cumberbatch is a fantastic actor but

the amount of pressure this puts on him is huge. If this is the case, I expect the trailer to focus quite a lot on him, to quell any fanboi rage and get them used to the idea.

Goldstein · 01-05-2012 10:15am

Benedict Cumberbatch is an excellent highly competent actor more than capable of rising to the role. Can't see anyone being the least bit worried about him. Cast was never the problem (Ok, Pegg was hopeless) but the rest were more than adequate, Pine and Urban were exceptional. The problems as before will all be with the plot/screenplay but hopefully they've give it more attention this time around.

Sad Professor · 01-05-2012 10:19am

As long as they aren't remaking TWOK, I really don't mind if Khan is the villain. Whoever he's playing I'm sure Cumberbatch will be excellent.

DrumSteve · 01-05-2012 10:26am

TBF as good as Cumberbatch will be, he will never be as good as Ricardo.

Looking forward to this though.

stevenmu · 01-05-2012 12:59pm

TWOK only really made sense because of Khan's earlier appearance in the series, so they can't directly remake that. They could start off his story line and then come back and do a TWOK later though, which could work well if they've already done a good job rebooting the character.

Beefy78 · 01-05-2012 1:19pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

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.

We don't really see any of that though. We don't see how our Kirk and Spock meet. We see how they meet in the new continuity. These aren't the same characters as the ones who have been on TV and film for almost 50 years. That's pretty much the whole point of the 2009 film.

I enjoyed the 2009 film as a stand alone film and can see why it reviewed well and why people who don't consider Sci-Fi to be their cup of tea can enjoy it. It's a blast and the start is brilliant. Had it been a pure reboot I'd have no real issues with it. It's dumbed down but that's the price for being mainstream.

My issues with it are that it isn't a reboot. It's specifically, explicitly a continuation of the story as we know it. That's made clear throughout the film, with 'our' Spock and Nero coming back in time, screwing up the timeline and deleting everything that came before to create the new continuity. I find that extremely arrogant on Abrams' part and it doesn't sit well with me.

Sad Professor · 01-05-2012 2:30pm

I'd consider it a de facto reboot. The alternate timeline business was just a clever way to appease some of the fans. Personally I would have preferred a pure reboot as well, but many fans would have seen that an erasure of the previous 40 years worth of continuity.

hightower1 · 01-05-2012 3:44pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

I'd consider it a de facto reboot. The alternate timeline business was just a clever way to appease some of the fans. Personally I would have preferred a pure reboot as well, but many fans would have seen that an erasure of the previous 40 years worth of continuity.

Well as Stephen Hawkings theorized as a solution to the grandfather theory - should one go back in time and change the past the original timeline would still exist but an entirely new and parallel time line would be created once the altration event occured.

This would mean both timelines continue on side by side.

.....nerd leveled UP!

hightower1 · 01-05-2012 3:49pm

DrumSteve wrote: »

TBF as good as Cumberbatch will be, he will never be as good as Ricardo..

Or as ripped, was watching it again recently and well..... you wouldnt try robbing HIS pension book anyways would ya!

Beefy78 · 01-05-2012 4:37pm

hightower1 wrote: »

Well as Stephen Hawkings theorized as a solution to the grandfather theory - should one go back in time and change the past the original timeline would still exist but an entirely new and parallel time line would be created once the altration event occured.

This would mean both timelines continue on side by side.

.....nerd leveled UP!

Yeah I've heard that argument before. Unfortunately it's at odds with how Trek have typically dealt with Time Travel with First Contact being a prime example. Trials and Tribble-ations being another. At the heart of these stories is the idea that the time line can be changed - not duplicated by people going back in time.

Anyway, Stephen Hawkings says one thing and Doctor Emmett Brown says another and I know who I'm going to trust.

Goldstein · 01-05-2012 5:55pm

Beefy78 wrote: »

Yeah I've heard that argument before. Unfortunately it's at odds with how Trek have typically dealt with Time Travel with First Contact being a prime example. Trials and Tribble-ations being another. At the heart of these stories is the idea that the time line can be changed - not duplicated by people going back in time.

Anyway, Stephen Hawkings says one thing and Doctor Emmett Brown says another and I know who I'm going to trust.

TVH would be another well known one.

But then again...

And there is also the famous mirror universe of In a Mirror Darkly, Mirror Mirror, The Tholian Web, Crossover, Shattered Mirror etc.

Either way, I wouldn't go reading too much into the physics research of people (Orci & Kurtman afterall) that think a star going supernova can destroy the universe.

mikhail · 01-05-2012 8:02pm

Goldstein wrote: »

Either way, I wouldn't go reading too much into the physics research of people (Orci & Kurtman afterall) that think a star going supernova can destroy the universe.

I guess you mean the line, "129 years from now, a star will explode and threaten to destroy the galaxy." It rubbed me up the wrong way too, but on reflection it seems likely he's talking metaphorically about the political consequences of a major empire being decapitated.

I feel sorry for people who worry about continuity being destroyed. The current state of comic books should tell you everything you need to know about obsessing over continuity.

Thrill · 01-05-2012 8:02pm

Leonard Nimoy may live longer as Spock Prime in Star Trek followup
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/may/01/leonard-nimoy-spock-star-trek

Star Trek fans thought they had said "live long and prosper" to Leonard Nimoy for the last time after the actor announced his retirement following a final turn as Spock in the 2009 series reboot by JJ Abrams. However, fresh reports from the US indicate that Nimoy may be planning one last hurrah as the taciturn Vulcan in Abrams's forthcoming followup.

pixelburp · 01-05-2012 8:08pm

Seems to me like Nimoy has been putting in one last hurrah for the last umpteen years. But hey, if nothing else his presence is a good crutch for the fans of the original/old/pure timeline (delete where applicable), and could act as a handy infodump / tour-guide when the crew meet the new-old foes.

Goldstein · 01-05-2012 8:49pm

mikhail wrote: »

Goldstein wrote: »

Either way, I wouldn't go reading too much into the physics research of people (Orci & Kurtman afterall) that think a star going supernova can destroy the universe.

I guess you mean the line, "129 years from now, a star will explode and threaten to destroy the galaxy." It rubbed me up the wrong way too, but on reflection it seems likely he's talking metaphorically about the political consequences of a major empire being decapitated.

I feel sorry for people who worry about continuity being destroyed. The current state of comic books should tell you everything you need to know about obsessing over continuity.

I entertained that interpretation briefly too but Concluded it was just another dumb line. Also it still wouldn't destroy the galaxy even metaphorically, yet alone universe.

Completely agree that continuity between the Star Trek universe and Abrams' Trek is irrelevant. Don't see how one effects the other at all. The two are completely independent.

Hopefully they're concentrating everything on developing a plausible, logical and intriguing character engined story to drive things, the rest will follow. Abrams knows how to make an entertaining action flick, the cast are well able and writing aside they seem to have a great production team behind it. Here's hoping the sequel is a bit more HBO and a bit less FOX.

Beefy78 · 02-05-2012 9:56am

Goldstein wrote: »

I entertained that interpretation briefly too but Concluded it was just another dumb line. Also it still wouldn't destroy the galaxy even metaphorically, yet alone universe.

Completely agree that continuity between the Star Trek universe and Abrams' Trek is irrelevant. Don't see how one effects the other at all. The two are completely independent.

But they're not independent. They're explicitly tied into one another. In Abram's Trek, Roddenberry's Trek never happened because of the events of the first scene.

Goldstein · 02-05-2012 10:18am

Beefy78 wrote: »

Goldstein wrote: »

I entertained that interpretation briefly too but Concluded it was just another dumb line. Also it still wouldn't destroy the galaxy even metaphorically, yet alone universe.

Completely agree that continuity between the Star Trek universe and Abrams' Trek is irrelevant. Don't see how one effects the other at all. The two are completely independent.

But they're not independent. They're explicitly tied into one another. In Abram's Trek, Roddenberry's Trek never happened because of the events of the first scene.

Different universe. The act of going back in time created a new reality. Star Trek does play it both ways alright - one timeline vs many timelines but Abrams chose the latter approach for his reboot. Makes sense as it freed him up to use the "a wizard did it" answer whenever something doesn't gel with the Star Trek universe.

filmbuffboy · 02-05-2012 11:30am

I have nothing against continuity being done away with for the sake of new life being breathed into the franchise.

But I sincerely hope that Abrams isn't redoing TWOK. Even if it is a new perspective on an old tale, we already know it! Give us something new, something untold!!!

Zubeneschamali · 02-05-2012 11:44am

filmbuffboy wrote: »

But I sincerely hope that Abrams isn't redoing TWOK.

It can't be the Wrath of Khan, Khan isn't mad at the new Kirk, as "Space Seed" hasn't happened yet.

Presumably, it's a new story kicking off with Kirk finding the Botany Bay in space.

Antar Bolaeisk · 02-05-2012 12:02pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It can't be the Wrath of Khan, Khan isn't mad at the new Kirk, as "Space Seed" hasn't happened yet.

Presumably, it's a new story kicking off with Kirk finding the Botany Bay in space.

If they are bringing Khan back they had better get James Horner back to do the music!

senordingdong · 02-05-2012 11:17pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

I'd consider it a de facto reboot. The alternate timeline business was just a clever way to appease some of the fans. Personally I would have preferred a pure reboot as well, but many fans would have seen that an erasure of the previous 40 years worth of continuity.

Sometimes I think I would have preferred that to this watered down new vision.

OldeCinemaSoz · 04-05-2012 10:45pm

There's so many classic episodes of TOS that i find it
hard why they just can't take one episode and do a
makeover for a movie?!?! :rolleyes:

the menagerie, the doomsday machine and city on the edge of
forver???

was TWOK really that a big box office sucess?

in the year of blade runner?

maybe :rolleyes: "God help us!"

Teyla Emmagan · 05-05-2012 12:11pm

Benedict AND Zach Quinto in the one movie! It will be like my own personal slice of heaven. Can't wait!!

pixelburp · 05-05-2012 12:28pm

OldeCinemaSoz wrote: »

There's so many classic episodes of TOS that i find it
hard why they just can't take one episode and do a
makeover for a movie?!?!

Rose tinted spectacles are a funny thing; whilst there were many 'classics' of the Original Series, there was also an equal, if not greater, proportion of dredge. It was very much of its time yes, but good god some of the series was godawful.

OldeCinemaSoz wrote: »

the menagerie, the doomsday machine and city on the edge of
forver???

was TWOK really that a big box office sucess?

in the year of blade runner?

What you talking about? BladeRunner was a flop on release, sure that's half its fame. As for The Wrath of Khan, it was #6 for total grossing movies in '82; considering the first film was a perceived flop, that took some doing. Mind you, it took less money than the previous movie, though was made at a fraction of the cost.

OldeCinemaSoz · 05-05-2012 11:07pm

pixelburp wrote: »

BladeRunner was a flop on release, sure that's half its fame. As for The Wrath of Khan, it was #6 for total grossing movies in '82

#and the public gets what the public wants#

the box office figures speaks volumes.

:rolleyes:

pixelburp · 05-05-2012 11:24pm

OldeCinemaSoz wrote: »

#and the public gets what the public wants#

the box office figures speaks volumes.

:rolleyes:

Ok, I have no idea what point you're trying to make. You asked if Wrath... was a box-office success: it was. What it has to do with the relative success of Blade Runner that year is beyond me.

OldeCinemaSoz · 05-05-2012 11:34pm

i think irony is escaping out the back door here
but i digress.

:rolleyes:

pixelburp · 05-05-2012 11:44pm

OldeCinemaSoz wrote: »

i think irony is escaping out the back door here
but i digress.

:rolleyes:

You know if you keep rolling your eyes like that they'll fall out of your head. No, I got it the first time, I just hoped there was more to that post than another suggested jibe at a 'popular' sci-fi movie

Wrath of Khan might have done tidy business with the great unwashed, but had just as much to say about the human condition as Blade Runner did. Doesn't have any arty credentials, but it's a touching journey of aging heroes, coming to terms with their own mortality and past.

senordingdong · 08-05-2012 8:48pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Wrath of Khan might have done tidy business with the great unwashed, but had just as much to say about the human condition as Blade Runner did. Doesn't have any arty credentials, but it's a touching journey of aging heroes, coming to terms with their own mortality and past.

Yes but this is exactly the type of quality story telling that has been omitted from the last Trek movie and replaced with lense flare.

I'm sure Khan will have tattoos and smoke too, just to make sure the audience 'gets' that he's the bad guy. I expect rocket launcher arms have not been rulled out either.

OldeCinemaSoz · 09-05-2012 6:38pm

pixelburp wrote: »

You know if you keep rolling your eyes like that they'll fall out of your head.

You sound like me granny. Stop picking your nose or
you'll have a hole in it!

Anyhow, i'd never have a swipe at popular science fiction films;
the time machine always gets into me top 20 faves of all time
and we thought avengers assembled was good but...

not as good as john carter.

I just loved that Native American bird in that one btw;
she's got a pretty cool spot on the wallpaper.

A stunner!

:cool:

Oafley Jones · 09-05-2012 8:33pm

filmbuffboy wrote: »

I have nothing against continuity being done away with for the sake of new life being breathed into the franchise.

But I sincerely hope that Abrams isn't redoing TWOK. Even if it is a new perspective on an old tale, we already know it! Give us something new, something untold!!!

Continuity has been something that has strangled Trek for too long and I'm glad that a reboot put an end to writers having to tip-toe around five series worth of story lines.

Revisiting Khan etc. is the laziest, most uninteresting choice that they could take.

filmbuffboy · 09-05-2012 11:35pm

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Revisiting Khan etc. is the laziest, most uninteresting choice that they could take.

I couldnt agree more!

Slydice · 05-06-2012 11:54pm

Surprised this hasn't been posted yet.

Enjoy

Edit: Dammit, looks like it's just a fan trailer. Still looks cool though.

paddy kerins · 05-06-2012 11:56pm

Probably 'cos it's fake

filmbuffboy · 06-06-2012 12:21pm

yeah, its been confirmed to be a fake

http://trekmovie.com/2012/06/05/fan-made-star-trek-sequel-teaser-fakes-out-internet/

too bad cause it looks cool lol

paddy kerins · 06-06-2012 1:13pm

It also actually says it in the description :pac:

senordingdong · 06-06-2012 2:26pm

It was ****e anyway.

JP Liz V1 · 11-09-2012 3:45pm

Source

J.J. Abrams upcoming Star Trek sequel finally has a title. The latest installment in the ongoing adventures of the U.S.S. Enterprise has been christened Star Trek Into Darkness

Gbear · 11-09-2012 5:06pm

I think building this series on the "alternate timeline" thing was a mistake. Time-travel always leads to nonsense plotlines.
Any time a writer suggests a time-travel plot he should be summarily executed.

A standard reboot would've annoyed me less.

Still, ST2009 was all in all a decent film so if they can build on that, iron out a few of the plot holes, then the new one should be well worth watching.

Mickeroo · 11-09-2012 5:11pm

Gbear wrote: »

I think building this series on the "alternate timeline" thing was a mistake. Time-travel always leads to nonsense plotlines.
Any time a writer suggests a time-travel plot he should be summarily executed.

A standard reboot would've annoyed me less.

Still, ST2009 was all in all a decent film so if they can build on that, iron out a few of the plot holes, then the new one should be well worth watching.

Time travel and nonsense plot lines were nothing new to star trek movies imo

Seriously though, I think the alternate timeline was one of their best ideas. It most be the only "reboot" thats still technically canon with the series it was rebooting. It was as much a sequel as a reboot in that way yet still frees them up to do whatever they want with this series.

I don't really want to see anymore time travel induced cameos from the original cast in the sequel though.

Nervous Wreck · 11-09-2012 5:13pm

Gbear wrote: »

Still, ST2009 was all in all a decent film so if they can build on that, iron out a few of the plot holes, then the new one should be well worth watching.

What plotholes?

Gbear · 11-09-2012 5:15pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

Time travel and nonsense plot lines were nothing new to star trek movies imo

I know, but I just wish they'd stop it.
I've always skipped most of the time-travely ones.

Mickeroo wrote: »

Seriously though, I think the alternate timeline was one of their best ideas. It most be the only "reboot" thats still technically canon with the series it was rebooting. It was as much a sequel as a reboot in that way yet still frees them up to do whatever they want with this series.

It was some clever politicking but that's about it. I don't think there would've been mass boycotts if it was a total reboot and didn't agree with canon.

Fuzzytrooper · 11-09-2012 5:17pm

The thing that bugged me about the time-travel aspect was the way Spock basically went..."Meh timestream has been altered, lets move on." Any other time this has happened in Trek, they have always tried to go back and fix the timeline. It just seemed so out of character for Spock and the series in general.

I'm caught between the fact that I loved the first film and the nerd inside me that cares way too much about petty points like the above.

Mickeroo · 11-09-2012 5:19pm

Gbear wrote: »

I know, but I just wish they'd stop it.
I've always skipped most of the time-travely ones.

Star Trek IV is my favourite out of the others, but yeah I'd be quite happy if they leave time travel out of the rest of the other films now.

Gbear wrote: »

It was some clever politicking but that's about it. I don't think there would've been mass boycotts if it was a total reboot and didn't agree with canon.

I mean it's canon in that the events of the other trek movies still technically happened in this universe albeit on an alternate timeline but yeah I'm sure it would have been grand without Nimoy showing up. I loved the scenes he was in though tbh.

Scanlas The 2nd · 11-09-2012 6:46pm

So anyone think the Borg will be in the next movie?

Sad Professor · 11-09-2012 6:58pm

Terrible title. They should have just called it Star Trek 2.

Slydice · 11-09-2012 10:04pm

To me, it certainly seems like the way to go to take a different path from the other movies. They didn't name themselves like that.

This looks like someone trying to be clever to me.
Star Trek - so this means a trek into the stars
Star Trek into Darkness - so this means a darker trek into the stars film

Considering the first film tried to be different but the same, this seems OK as an idea.

Sad Professor · 11-09-2012 10:54pm

I can understand them wanting to get away from "Star Trek: <Subtitle>" as it can give the impression of another entry in the endless adventures of the Enterprise of which there has already been numerous. And I can understand them not wanting to call it "Star Trek 2", especially if Khan is the villain, as it would lead people to think it's a remake. But "Star Trek into Darkness" seems really clunky.

However, I suspect "Into Darkness" will be treated as a sort-of subtitle, albeit with an invisible hyphen rather than a colon: "Star Trek - Into Darkness", with the emphasis on Star Trek. I think if they were trying to create a standalone title they would have dropped the "Star" and called it simply "Trek into Darkness".

Although I can't help but think that real reason for this title is some Paramount exec believes having "dark" in the title means bigger box office.

johnny_ultimate · 12-09-2012 1:01am

Still a whole lot better than The Desolation of Smaug.

Antar Bolaeisk · 12-09-2012 1:48pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Still a whole lot better than The Desolation of Smaug.

I kinda like that, it just sits rather awkwardly between An Unexpected Journey and There and Back Again

Not sure on Star Trek Into Darkness, it just sounds clumsy saying it as if my mind is trying to force a colon in where none exists.

They could probably drop the Star Trek bit anyways and no one would notice

Sad Professor wrote: »

I'd consider it a de facto reboot. The alternate timeline business was just a clever way to appease some of the fans. Personally I would have preferred a pure reboot as well, but many fans would have seen that an erasure of the previous 40 years worth of continuity.

I still don't see why they had to reboot it at all, they could have just set the story in the same timeline as Kirk without actually using him. There was more than one starship in the federation and the Enterprise couldn't have been the only one doing all the cool stuff.

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

Comments

Star Trek Into Darkness [ SPOILERS FROM POST 452 ]