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

norrie rugger

Star Trek First Contact is no less cumbersome

don ramo

i dont think people will be put off by the name, in sure the posters will be something like

PINE

---

QUINTO

STAR TREK







INTO DARKNESS

and thats all that needed to get people to see this, after the 2009 one i dont see marketing as an issue for this one,

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Still a whole lot better than The Desolation of Smaug.

read that it was meant to be called Riddles In The Dark, thats a much better title.

Star Trek Into Darkness? Into Lensflare more like.

Rabies

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

What plotholes?

Jesus Christ, will you keep it down. You're on an internet film forum asking about plot holes. I can hear them already coming over the hills with scene by scene break downs.

Mickeroo

Abrams showed a clip on Conan apparently: http://teamcoco.com/video/jj-abrams-gives-an-exclusive-sneak-peek-of-star-trek-into-darkness

My internet sucks balls so I haven't been able to watch it. Apparently its only three frames long or something though.

mikhail

Mickeroo wrote: »

Abrams showed a clip on Conan apparently: http://teamcoco.com/video/jj-abrams-gives-an-exclusive-sneak-peek-of-star-trek-into-darkness

My internet sucks balls so I haven't been able to watch it. Apparently its only three frames long or something though.

Here's a gif of it so. He introduced it as "Spock in a special suit in a volcano" or words to that effect.

johnny_ultimate

Taking the concept of a 'teaser' to ludicrous new heights (or is it lows?) there, J.J.

Mickeroo

Glad I didn't sit through the Conan clip for that I have to say.

It's achieved its goal, hasn't it? I mean you're discussing it now -- so, yeah.

Wonder if that's Quinto's Spock or Nimoy's Spock?

Mickeroo

Don't think Nimoy is in this one.

Mickeroo

Mickeroo wrote: »

Don't think Nimoy is in this one.

That's a pity. Would have been nice to have seen him come back again.

I remember someone mention previously a rumour that Cumberbatch was playing Khan effectively - has that been proven to be true or false?

Mickeroo

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a pity. Would have been nice to have seen him come back again.

I remember someone mention previously a rumour that Cumberbatch was playing Khan effectively - has that been proven to be true or false?

Not 100% on who he's playing but I thought they debunked the talk of him playing Khan, could be wrong though.

Goldstein

Is that a light source with no massive lens flare, surely not?

pixelburp

3 seconds, yowsers - what the heck was the context of this 'clip'? They surely weren't promoting this as something legitimate? I'm not going to suffer Conan O'Brian to find out, so someone can give me the cliff notes

Colmo52

pixelburp wrote: »

3 seconds, yowsers - what the heck was the context of this 'clip'? They surely weren't promoting this as something legitimate? I'm not going to suffer Conan O'Brian to find out, so someone can give me the cliff notes

Not even 3 seconds. 3 FRAMES.

FortuneChip

I've heard the teaser is the same if you play it backwards!

JP Liz V1

Source

"Star Trek" fans will get their first look at what's next for Captain Kirk
and crew thanks to a sneak peek on IMAX 3D screens this December. Paramount
Pictures will premiere nine minutes from the J.J. Abrams sequel, which carries
the impressively vague title of "Star Trek Into Darkness."
The film, which brings back a cast that includes Chris Pine and Zachary
Quinto, hits theaters on May 17, 2013.

senordingdong

Nine whole minutes!?

That ought to shine some lense flare onto the darkness.

mikhail

senordingdong wrote: »

Nine whole minutes!?

That ought to shine some lense flare onto the darkness.

It's probably the pre-credit sequence. Which was the best part of the last Star Trek movie, and I say that as a fan.

Sad Professor

Official synopsis:

In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes "Star Trek Into Darkness."

When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis.

With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction.

As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.

This pretty much confirms the villain as Gary Mitchell IMO.

Gbear

Sad Professor wrote: »

Official synopsis:



This pretty much confirms the villain as Gary Mitchell IMO.

Who?

Mickeroo

Gbear wrote: »

Who?

Don't want to embed for potential spoilers: http://www.trekp.com/posters/gw116-mitchell.jpg

Sad Professor

As FutureGuy just pointed out in the Trek forum, it could be Garth of Izar as well. I think I'd prefer Mitchell personally, but Garth might make more sense. Unlike Mitchell who acquired supernatural powers, Garth was more of a Colonel Kurtz-type character, which would fit perfectly with the Conrad-esque title and synopsis.

pixelburp

Sad Professor wrote: »

Official synopsis:

[...] When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis. [...]

Wait, so the fleet's going to get completely trashed, again? Man they're going to run out of willing recruits at this rate - maybe that's why Starfleet seemed more like a military force in the reboot, everyone's a conscript

It's being picky, but I don't understand why, in Star Trek films, any ship without the name "Enterprise" is the vessel equivalent of the red-shirts & basically cannon-fodder

Oafley Jones

Faraci can be a complete ****, but this from BAD made me laugh....


Could it still be Khan? I guess. But now I have a new hope for who Benedict Cumberbatch's villain will be:

Finnegan. He was an upperclassman who tormented Kirk in the academy (in the original continuity Kirk was a big nerd in school). He - or a simulacrum of him, anyway - showed up in the episode Shore Leave, where he and Kirk fought and rolled on the ground for a good long while.

Gauss

I fear the worst. More tripe with the second one.

KenSwee

pixelburp wrote: »

Wait, so the fleet's going to get completely trashed, again? Man they're going to run out of willing recruits at this rate - maybe that's why Starfleet seemed more like a military force in the reboot, everyone's a conscript

It's being picky, but I don't understand why, in Star Trek films, any ship without the name "Enterprise" is the vessel equivalent of the red-shirts & basically cannon-fodder

I couldn't agree more. I just bloody ridiculous.

Myrddin

KenSwee wrote: »

I just bloody ridiculous.

Ah, don't be so hard on yourself

Bullseye1

Interesting looking poster. Looks more Superman and Star Trek.

Bullseye1

Not sure why its bit showing up. I'll try again.