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

libra02

It been announced that Benedict Cumberbatch has been cast as a villain in the Star Trek Squel. Have to say this has me even more excited to see the next film. Not a huge fan of Star Trek but I loved the JJ Abrmas reboot and cannot wait to see what he does next.

Be interesting to see what type of villian he will play but he will do an excellent job. Only hope that they can work a 3rd series of Sherlock into his schedule.

Link to article here:

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/01/05/star-trek-benedict-cumberbatch/

Sad Professor

Chastain hasn't been cast. That was just badly worded by EW.

Cumberbatch is a great actor. I wonder who he's playing. Not Khan, I assume, so hopefully a new villain.

paddy kerins

Peter Weller is also in

libra02

Sad Professor wrote: »

Chastain hasn't been cast. That was just badly worded by EW.

Cumberbatch is a great actor. I wonder who he's playing. Not Khan, I assume, so hopefully a new villain.

Opps my bad. After re-reading it I see what you mean. Edited to correct this.

libra02

Sad Professor wrote: »

Chastain hasn't been cast. That was just badly worded by EW.

Cumberbatch is a great actor. I wonder who he's playing. Not Khan, I assume, so hopefully a new villain.

Opps my bad. After re-reading it I see what you mean. Edited to correct this.

Agree he a great actor and extremely veristile. Did not get to see Tinker Tailor Solider Spy in cinema but cannot wait to see it when it comes out on DVD.
Reading book currently and def was right choice to play Peter Guillam.

Pepe LeFrits

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Benedict_Cumberbatch_filming_Sherlock_cropped.jpg

Well he already looks like a Romulan.

Oafley Jones

Just checked and Orci and Kurtzman have writing credits on this as well. Seriously, how do these guys get work, they make Akiva Goldsman look talented. I'm also convinced that Abrams has zero ability when it comes to judging the quality of scripts. Do love Weller, he's fairly one note but still manages to be awesome in stuff like Odyssey 5.

Sad Professor

Orci and Kurtzman are hacks, but I would have a lot of faith in Abrams and Lindelof. As a director Abrams is very good at making things work. He was pretty much writing and re-writing MI3 as he shot the film. He thinks on his feet and can see when something isn't working and is able to adjust it. A lot of directors can't do this and will just stick to the script no matter how bad it is.

Oafley Jones

Sad Professor wrote: »

Orci and Kurtzman are hacks, but I would have a lot of faith in Abrams and Lindelof. As a director Abrams is very good at making things work. He was pretty much writing and re-writing MI3 as he shot the film. He thinks on his feet and can see when something isn't working and is able to adjust it. A lot of directors can't do this and will just stick to the script no matter how bad it is.

I like MI3 quite a lot, more than MI4 infact and its got problems but very little of that is to do with the script. I'll give him credit that he can elevate a bad script to an entertaining movie such as Star Trek, but why is he continually shooting with such sub standard material and why does he bring those two onto new projects. Again with ST, I could see that the time pressure of bringing back Paramounts franchise may have been a factor but I'm struggling to see an excuse for Super 8.

JP Liz V1

Noel Clarke and Alice Eve also join the cast

Dotrel

libra02 wrote: »

Not a huge fan of Star Trek but I loved the JJ Abrmas reboot

Sums up this worthless series in a sentence. These movies are nothing but Star Trek for people who don't like Star Trek, with dull actors imitating established classic characters. Possibly one of the most unfortunate reboots cinema history.

Sad Professor

Dotrel wrote: »

Sums up this worthless series in a sentence. These movies are nothing but Star Trek for people who don't like Star Trek, with dull actors imitating established classic characters. Possibly one of the most unfortunate reboots cinema history.

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.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yeah he rebooted it and it's massively popular now but it's not star trek anymore
it's just generic action sci fi blockbuster with the crew of the original series

more power to him if that's what people want to watch but it just gets a big fat meh from me.

johnny_ultimate

I have no interest in anything Star Trek but the latest film was without a shadow of a doubt the best blockbuster in an awfully long time, and has (off the top of my head) yet to be surpassed.

It's a powerful reminder of those days when blockbuster films were true spectacles: beautifully scored, cleverly directed, wittily written and charismatically acted. It also has the best opening five minutes of any big budget action movie ever made.

MrStuffins

Dotrel wrote: »

Sums up this worthless series in a sentence. These movies are nothing but Star Trek for people who don't like Star Trek, with dull actors imitating established classic characters. Possibly one of the most unfortunate reboots cinema history.

Yup, ya know a lot of people think Star Trek is a load of old balls! When making a new Star Trek movie it's obvious that you'd need to appeal to more than just the Star Trek fanboys by making a film seperate to the former works. It also made considerably more at the Box Office than any previous Star Trek movie (well over double it's nearest rival "Nemesis")

The reboot was super! I loved it and can't wait for the sequel!

krudler

Dotrel wrote: »

Sums up this worthless series in a sentence. These movies are nothing but Star Trek for people who don't like Star Trek, with dull actors imitating established classic characters. Possibly one of the most unfortunate reboots cinema history.

piffle, trek 2009 is one of the best blockbuster for years, it injected much needed life into the series.

best theme tune since Jerry Goldmsith as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu0QO1za64E

johnny_ultimate

There are times I wonder if I just liked Star Trek '09 for the epic score. But I'm fairly sure the film was pretty good too.

pixelburp

Maybe this belongs in the Unpopular Movie Opinions thread, but I honestly & truly can't understand the widespread appeal of the first movie, especially after seeing it again over Xmas.

Sure, the dialogue had some wit & pep, but every other facet was just dreadful: the plot made no sense & was full to bursting with holes; the pacing was rushed beyond endurance; the visuals were jarring & overblown (yes, that included the infamous lensflare). And speaking as someone who is apathetic about Star Trek anyway, even I ound it barely related to the Star Trek tone & ethos.

I wasn't expecting a cinematic masterpiece - before the "turn off your brain & forget the plot" brigade appear - but god it felt like watching a fan-film made by a 12 year-old with ADD. Yeah the franchise was a lame-duck, but I didn't think a breathless reboot was the answer.

That said, I'm happy for Cumberbatch though, great to see him getting exposure stateside & would love to see how the Americans deal with his (awesome) name

Theboinkmaster

I thought the 2009 star trek was an awful film and just another generic blockbuster.

Give me some decent episodes of DS9 over it any day.

norrie rugger

It does not bother me that the last Star Trek was an action based film.
It does bother me that it was a DUMB action based film

johnny_ultimate

norrie rugger wrote: »

It does bother me that it was a DUMB action based film

As opposed to what exactly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1eFdUSnaQM

I have a pretty low tolerance for dumb fun, but I'm not really sure what anyone expected from Star Trek 2009. It was a big budget spectacle movie. On those terms, it succeeded magnificently.

norrie rugger

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

As opposed to what exactly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1eFdUSnaQM

I have a pretty low tolerance for dumb fun, but I'm not really sure what anyone expected from Star Trek 2009. It was a big budget spectacle movie. On those terms, it succeeded magnificently.

Mega budget 2009 film
vs
1968 low budget episode
And even that fight had more of a meaning than most of the new film.

Compare the film to latter TNG or DS9 etc.

What I mean is that there are plot holes all over the place, insane new technology implimented (just for the hell of it), cadets being assigned to a fleet flag ship. No explination of what happened to Nero, to send him to Rura Penthe, how he actually escaped and why the Klingons had not taked his ship appart. No explination as to why a mining ship was so large and heavily armed.

I have watched it and even enjoyed it, for what it was, but it is completely dumbed down Trek. I understand why they did it, the franchise was dead and hard core fans were not enough to revive it. Look at Serenity to show that you need a wider audience than the core, to make a film successful.
That said, I do not have to like what they did and think that they went too far to the other end of the spectrum.

johnny_ultimate

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.

DrumSteve

I would class myself as a fairly huge trek fan and i really liked the film. felt that it did what it needed to do and having sat through insurrection and nemesis in the cinema this was a return to form. I'd still rate it as the 4th best out of the series after Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home and First Contact (which was epic).

norrie rugger

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

But are your issues with the film as a Trek fan or are they with the film itself?

Bit of column A, bit of column B. If it were not called Star Trek I would have loved it as an over the top yet flawed Sci-Fi/Fantasy adventure but the simple fact is that it is taking part in an already established franchise and, therefore, is open to criticism for deviating from previous encarnations.

I do believe that the franchise needed a new direction but perhaps not that far. JJ himself has stated that he is no Trek fan and only took it as he could do a film set in space, with big set pieces.

It would be like suddenly making Wolverine an nice guy. It is just jarring if you know that is not the way the franchise works.

melekalikimaka

It alienated Star Trek fans, and drew in new fans... Its Star Trek Jim... but not as we know it

Myrddin

MrStuffins wrote: »

Yup, ya know a lot of people think Star Trek is a load of old balls! When making a new Star Trek movie it's obvious that you'd need to appeal to more than just the Star Trek fanboys by making a film seperate to the former works. It also made considerably more at the Box Office than any previous Star Trek movie (well over double it's nearest rival "Nemesis")

The reboot was super! I loved it and can't wait for the sequel!

Unless it inspired you to go back & see what StarTrek really is, & is all about, then hasn't it failed as a reboot? Isn't it just a fresh coat of paint on a 50 year old premise? It's pretty good film, but as has been mentioned, it would still have been pretty good if not called Star Trek.

Star Trek as it has been since the 60's is dead, & a reboot was/is needed. I think the film could have been a lot worse, & as a fan of the series, I'm pleased it got another shot on the big screen. I don't think there's a place on tv for Trek for the forseeable future.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

As opposed to what exactly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1eFdUSnaQM

I have a pretty low tolerance for dumb fun, but I'm not really sure what anyone expected from Star Trek 2009. It was a big budget spectacle movie. On those terms, it succeeded magnificently.

In fairness, that clip is fifty years old. I'd like to see how the majority of tv today stands up in 2060

melekalikimaka wrote: »

It alienated Star Trek fans, and drew in new fans... Its Star Trek Jim... but not as we know it

I'd be a pretty die hard fan of all things Trek, I wouldn't say it alienated me though. It was a good watch, there's plot holes & inconsistencies everywhere but the same can be said of even the very best Trek movies.

I think ultimately it was a damned good shot at rebuilding Star Trek. The big question is will it attract interest in what Star Trek really is, & give people incentive to back & watch the established films/shows?

Dermighty

Dotrel wrote: »

Sums up this worthless series in a sentence. These movies are nothing but Star Trek for people who don't like Star Trek, with dull actors imitating established classic characters. Possibly one of the most unfortunate reboots cinema history.

The last star trek movie was more enjoyable than any of the previous star trek movies I'd ever seen.

mikhail

norrie rugger wrote: »

Bit of column A, bit of column B. If it were not called Star Trek I would have loved it as an over the top yet flawed Sci-Fi/Fantasy adventure but the simple fact is that it is taking part in an already established franchise and, therefore, is open to criticism for deviating from previous encarnations.

I do believe that the franchise needed a new direction but perhaps not that far. JJ himself has stated that he is no Trek fan and only took it as he could do a film set in space, with big set pieces.

It would be like suddenly making Wolverine an nice guy. It is just jarring if you know that is not the way the franchise works.

I like a little science fiction in my space opera as much as the next man, but I enjoyed Abrams' film for successfully introducing a large new cast in a fast-paced action movie.

As for comparing it with previous incarnations, more happens to Uhura in Star Trek XI than to everyone in the entirety of The Motion Picture (and than to Uhura in Star Trek I to X). The only films broadly liked from the ten which preceded it are II, IV, VI and VIII. I've watched those films relatively recently - IV's a ham-fisted ecological metaphor with some comic relief, VI's a ham-fisted post-Cold War movie (Also, find a worse line in Star Trek XI than, Chang, "We need breathing room." Kirk, "Earth, Hitler, 1938."). Oh, and Plinkett rather skewered VIII in his rather lengthy review of it. That leaves The Wrath of Khan to hold up to the light. That (entertaining, personal favourite) movie contains plot holes like Khan recognising Chekov (who he'd never met), and genetically engineered geniuses failing to find anything fishy about the "hours could seem like days" dialogue.

Myrddin

mikhail wrote: »

Oh, and Plinkett rather skewered VIII in his rather lengthy review of it.

Oh, another American talking into a mic. Great, there's not enough of those people.

mikhail wrote:

That leaves The Wrath of Khan to hold up to the light. That (entertaining, personal favourite) movie contains plot holes like Khan recognising Chekov (who he'd never met), and genetically engineered geniuses failing to find anything fishy about the "hours could seem like days" dialogue.

There's no comparison between the two movies. The Wrath Of Khan trounces Star Trek. Yes there's plot holes in all films, whats your point?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

the plinkett reviews are absolutely fantastic if you can put your strange xenophobia aside for a couple of hours