Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1246724

Comments

  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,073 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,656 ✭✭✭norrie rugger


    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)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,656 ✭✭✭norrie rugger


    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!


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,073 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,667 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12 CharAdriel


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 829 ✭✭✭OldeCinemaSoz


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Nervous Wreck


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,948 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    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.

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,721 ✭✭✭Otacon


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,551 ✭✭✭Goldstein


    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.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,667 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,799 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


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

    Looking forward to this though.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,689 Mod ✭✭✭✭stevenmu


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,163 ✭✭✭Beefy78


    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.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,667 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,207 ✭✭✭hightower1


    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!


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,207 ✭✭✭hightower1


    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!


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,163 ✭✭✭Beefy78


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,551 ✭✭✭Goldstein


    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...

    qB0sI.jpg

    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,863 ✭✭✭mikhail


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,485 ✭✭✭Thrill


    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.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,718 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,551 ✭✭✭Goldstein


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,163 ✭✭✭Beefy78


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,551 ✭✭✭Goldstein


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 894 ✭✭✭filmbuffboy


    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!!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,091 ✭✭✭Antar Bolaeisk


    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!


Advertisement