Star Trek Into Darkness [** SPOILERS FROM POST 147 **]

Kiith

So they are actual confirmed spoilers for the film, rather than just guesses? Bah, didn't want to know any of that

Goodshape

Kiith wrote: »

So they are actual confirmed spoilers for the film, rather than just guesses? Bah, didn't want to know any of that

On the other hand it shows that an awful lot of what we've been scrutinizing and chatting about so far, from the trailer etc., occurs in the first 9 minutes of the film. So still plenty to be revealed.

Can't forget this is JJ 'LOST' Abrams behind this. Wouldn't be surprised if we're being led up the garden path to some extent about the plot / villains.

Sad Professor

Full teaser trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5gdbUC9mWU

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrekintodarkness/

FutureGuy

Lads one of the shots may have given the main plot away.

it looks like we are looking at coffins... They are cryochambers. Like Botany Bay.

Myrddin

FutureGuy wrote: »

Lads one of the shots may have given the main plot away.

it looks like we are looking at coffins... They are cryochambers. Like Botany Bay.

I had the exact same thought, they look like

stasis pods

to me

Kurn

Just saw the hobbit in iMax, at the start they showed 6-7 minutes of star trek, audience getting worried they were in wrong movie, looks good

Cookie_Monster

so it's Reliant hitting the water then

Kiith

Saw the Hobbit today, and they showed the first 9 minutes.

I waited in the lobby. No way in hell i was watching it.

Woden

Yeah saw the hobbit last night. Watched the preview/prologue whatever it was. Enjoyed it!

Masked Man

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxZcxkFZZP0

SarahBM

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO EXCITED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think it looks awsome!

Goodshape

CRASH! BOOM! POW! SPACEPLOSION!!


meh.



Saw that new teaser in front of Oz in IMAX last weekend. Looks totally uninspired. Looked as "Star Trek" as Lost in Space or some other muck. Hope there's more to the film than that.

Didn't help that a new Superman / Man of Steel trailer was on just before it. Much better looking crash, boom, pow, etc.

Myrddin

Have to say I agree, another CG fest with CG spolsions & CG jumps off of CG cliffs into a land of CG. Hopefully there's a more engaging aspect of the film, because I'm at breaking point with these CG 'gasm blockbusters.

iDave

The fact that Vulcan doesnt exist anymore adds the the 'meh' aspect of this film. Removing Vulcan from the history of the UFP is like removing France from the history of the EU.

SarahBM

but I like CGI

Myrddin

SarahBM wrote: »

but I like CGI

I'm perfectly fine with CG effects, Terminator 2 for instance is one of my favourite films. There was a perfect blend of CG effects, with live action effects, miniatures & all the other tools needed...& the results still hold up today {for the most part}. But nowadays, its CG characters, CG landscapes, CG explosions, CG blood, CG this CD that...its so overused that literally everything you see on screen is quite apparently fake. Its become quite frankly, downright boring.

I watched Alien & Aliens there recently, real sets, real people, incredible model work, miniatures, live action - it still stands up to this day when you look at it. When your watching it, your there on LV426 * fully immersed in the film. When you watch Avatar in comparison, at no point do you feel like your actuall on Pandora, nor does it feel like Pandora is a real place

SarahBM

I hated Alien *ducks for cover*

Perhaps just wait til you have seen the actual entire film before judging it. did you like Star Trek XI?

love your avatar btw

Myrddin

SarahBM wrote: »

I hated Alien *ducks for cover*

Let me guess, your under 21? Did you like Aliens?

Perhaps just wait til you have seen the actual entire film before judging it. did you like Star Trek XI?

Aye, sure its impossible to judge from what we've seen so far. What does stand out in the trailers though, is that its one CG landscape & scene after the next. The lava parts just scream Mustafar from Episode 3 {Star Wars}

love your avatar btw

Ah see now you've totally redeemed yourself after your Alien comment

seamus

EnterNow wrote: »

Let me guess, your under 21? Did you like Aliens?

Admittedly I wasn't crazy about Alien either, I much preferred Aliens. From watching in more recent years, I realise this was because I was far too young watching the original (probably 10 or 12) and so I had difficulty following the story. I think I may have also seen Aliens first, so when I saw Alien, one of my first thoughts was, "What, only one Alien?"

Myrddin

seamus wrote: »

Admittedly I wasn't crazy about Alien either, I much preferred Aliens. From watching in more recent years, I realise this was because I was far too young watching the original (probably 10 or 12) and so I had difficulty following the story. I think I may have also seen Aliens first, so when I saw Alien, one of my first thoughts was, "What, only one Alien?"

Well films aside, the reason I brought both Alien & Aliens up was a measure of how well they've stood the test of time, based on the quality of their special effects. In comparison, I watched Star Trek XI, Avatar, [insert recent blockbuster here] & effects wise its all just meh. After watching Alien & Aliens recently, I kept getting distracted thinking "Most of these sets are actually real, they were built by people, Ripley is actually there, facing a 16 foot Alien Queen...look how f**king amazing it looks!" whereas with modern ones, I see past the effects straight away and see only this



CG is relied on far, far too much for my liking. Sure its cost effective, & you can do things otherwise impossible...but its used for the most mundane things these days, practical effects stand out so much better. A nice blend of both, a la Terminator 2 type stuff is the perfect balance.

Regards Alien & Aliens, I think I like them both equally. Alien has that tense, claustrophobic, being picked off one by one feel. Aliens, has the foreboding LV426, the incredible model & set builds, & the third act is a masterpiece of sci-fi action

SarahBM

EnterNow wrote: »

Let me guess, your under 21? Did you like Aliens?



Aye, sure its impossible to judge from what we've seen so far. What does stand out in the trailers though, is that its one CG landscape & scene after the next. The lava parts just scream Mustafar from Episode 3 {Star Wars}



Ah see now you've totally redeemed yourself after your Alien comment

Im not under 21 (you should never ask a lady her age ) But I am under 30 LOL
I have seen half of Aliens but I was so bored I turned it off *ducks* I might try it again, just to appease the gods. :rolleyes:

Myrddin

SarahBM wrote: »

I have seen half of Aliens but I was so bored I turned it off *ducks* I might try it again, just to appease the gods. :rolleyes:

Do yourself a favour & watch it in its entirety, its really really good

SarahBM

EnterNow wrote: »

Do yourself a favour & watch it in its entirety, its really really good

I'll try. promise!

FutureGuy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhz4A5BCMAA

New international trailer. I'm going to be in the UK the weekend it opens over there so can't wait

Goodshape

Movie looks like good fun.


When are they making a new Star Trek?

FutureGuy

Goodshape wrote: »

Movie looks like good fun.


When are they making a new Star Trek?

It is Star Trek. The same way that First Contact was Star Trek. It was a great action movie and this looks to be the same. Look at Insurrection...it was close to being a TV episode in terms of the story but it bombed. Trek needs to make money on the big screen.

I do think that Cumberbatch's character is going to provide the meat of the story in terms of the essence of Trek.

From what I have read, his character was one of the top members of Starfleet whio has turn rouge because he disagrees with the ethics of what Starfleet has done.

Either way, I cannot wait now.

Myrddin

FutureGuy wrote: »

It is Star Trek. The same way that First Contact was Star Trek. It was a great action movie and this looks to be the same. Look at Insurrection...it was close to being a TV episode in terms of the story but it bombed. Trek needs to make money on the big screen.

Admittedly I too would label these new films as 'Generic Action CG Blockbuster Fest With A Fancy Name 1 & 2...but then someone simply has to raise the point about Generations, First Contact, Insurrection & Nemesis and that puts me firmly in my place

These new films are good fun, they have made Star Trek acceptable again & after the ruins it was left in, thats a good thing. And because these new films don't have the luxury of a tv series to get the audience to really bond with the characters, I think they do a good enough job given they have two hours of screen time each.

Goodshape

Well, I hope you're right. And fair point about First Contact, Insurrection, Nemesis, etc... but then on the other hand you have Star Trek 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 showing that a balance can (or at least could) be struck.

First Contact may have been an action film but it also had strong ties with events in TNG that preceded it. And it was a good action film.

Insurrection would have been just as dull a 45 minute episode as it was a movie.

One of (but not the only) problems with Nemesis is that it discarded so much of what we know of the characters and series and just went for the action/revenge movie plot.


Anyway, I enjoyed the first movie plenty for what it was. Hopefully this will be the same. I do hope they make a new television series soon enough though, and get back to some Treking.

Myrddin

Goodshape wrote: »

Well, I hope you're right. And fair point about First Contact, Insurrection, Nemesis, etc... but then on the other hand you have Star Trek 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 showing that a balance can (or at least could) be struck.

First Contact may have been an action film but it also had strong ties with events in TNG that preceded it. And it was a good action film.

I agree, but you have to consider TOS had three full seasons of tv time to establish itself. TNG had seven full seasons & was massively successful before it even got to the big screen.

These reboots can't afford to go delving to deep into other areas that make Trek what it is just yet, it needs to establish itself first & only action-type stuff will turn heads at first

Goodshape

EnterNow wrote: »

I agree, but you have to consider TOS had three full seasons of tv time to establish itself. TNG had seven full seasons & was massively successful before it even got to the big screen.

These reboots can't afford to go delving to deep into other areas that make Trek what it is just yet, it needs to establish itself first & only action-type stuff will turn heads at first

So we should forgo all hope for even half-intelligent sci-fi because explosions put more bums in seats? That is, if nothing else, a pity. We're not exactly short of explosive action movies at the box office as it is.

Anyway, I just hope it's enjoyable at least. And I'm sure it will be. Plus, who knows what will happen next. Maybe a change of pace now that JJ is away doing Star Wars.


Still no name for Cumberbatch's character? Maybe it's just not important? Seemed a bit conspicuous by it's absence in the trailer though.