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

senordingdong

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

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

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

pixelburp

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

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

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

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

:rolleyes:

pixelburp

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

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

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

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

Oafley Jones wrote: »

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

I couldnt agree more!

Slydice

Surprised this hasn't been posted yet.

Enjoy

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

paddy kerins

Probably 'cos it's fake

filmbuffboy

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

It also actually says it in the description :pac:

senordingdong

It was ****e anyway.

JP Liz V1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sad Professor

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

Slydice

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

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

Still a whole lot better than The Desolation of Smaug.

Antar Bolaeisk

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.