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

liamtech

I expect it will be critically and financially successful - and i accept that yes, my star trek is dead - there were moments in this film that were ACTUALLY CRINGE-WORTHY

The plot was predictable from about the mid-way point
The back story made about as much sense as Jeremy Kyle
The sprinkling of 'nods and winks' ;);););) was farcical
And the actual climax... if you could call it that... was insane

Hey, if you enjoy it im happy for ye! But

• I went in with an open mind -
• Im a die hard star trek fan
• i know its a reboot
• I enojoyed the last one (not as much as the original films but still)
• i was gagging to see this film since christmas

and i am more disappointed in it than i was with Ireland's performance in Euro 2012

No plot revelations - go see it and enjoy - but this film will NEVER be joining my Trekkie DVD collection

bazermc

The news film was discussed on RTE radio this morning.

The RTE guy kept on calling the film "Into the Darkness"

It really annoyed me!!!!!!!!!!

In other news - I am looking forward to seeing it - huge trek fan, but not a huge fan of the reboot

azezil

For me it was a movie of 2 halves, the first half surprisingly good the second was just dismal. As already mentioned, the 2nd half is very predictable and for me and those around me, very cringy.

minktrapper

Why does it say May 17th on preview for Star Trek release date

MrVestek

minktrapper wrote: »

Why does it say May 17th on preview for Star Trek release date

We got it earlier than the Yanks.

ilovesmybrick

Well I think that if you went to see it only having been introduced to Star Trek through the last film (like my gf), you'll possibly enjoy it. But as a long time fan of the series there is one scene that is possibly going to really p*** you off. Not so much a tribute as a bastardisation. That being said parts were really enjoyable, though if I go see it again to give it another shot I'm definitely avoiding the 3d, it was okay in parts, but in the opening scene where people are running it's incredibly disorientating

MrVestek

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

Well I think that if you went to see it only having been introduced to Star Trek through the last film (like my gf), you'll possibly enjoy it. But as a long time fan of the series there is one scene that is possibly going to really p*** you off. Not so much a tribute as a bastardisation. That being said parts were really enjoyable, though if I go see it again to give it another shot I'm definitely avoiding the 3d, it was okay in parts, but in the opening scene where people are running it's incredibly disorientating

Do you mean:

KKHAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNN!!!

ilovesmybrick

Oh yeah. I mean it might have been okay if they hadn't dragged it on for so long but you knew that it wasn't going to end

with Kirk dying, so they sacrificed the emotional impact of the original for a pointless nod to fans

ilovesmybrick

Though I can't give out about it altogether, the end does wrap it in quite nicely to the beginning of TOS. Would it be too much to ask for a new show?

ibFoxer

Just a quick question, heading on Saurday with a few mates- for anyone that has seen it, 2d or 3d recommended?

ilovesmybrick

I went to the 3d showing and I'd recommend 2d. The 3d wasn't great in parts, especially in the opening few minutes, though that being said I usually have some issues with films in 3d

ibFoxer

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

I went to the 3d showing and I'd recommend 2d. The 3d wasn't great in parts, especially in the opening few minutes, though that being said I usually have some issues with films in 3d

I was thinking as much, the trailer before Iron Man 3 in 3d was a little......headachey.....so i was thinking of giving the 2d a shout for the first showing at least (assuming i walk away happy enough to see it again)

Zillah

I enjoyed it quite a bit. Lots of disappointing parts too, though. Cumberbatch was amazing and stole the show, but the plot was kinda all over the place. It should have been a five hour movie for all the story they were trying to tell. I can live with the not so subtle nods to TOS, but there was a whole section that made me feel like I was watching Insurrection 2 - that'll only make sense to people that have seen it and even then not everyone. Did anyone else get that feeling?

A whole big fight against a superior ship where there's no actual fighting and they win with some lame gimmick.

I'd go 2D, another dimension just makes it confusing and rarely adds anything. I say this as someone that usually likes 3D.

Stabshauptmann

I'm a big Star Trek. Hated fan. Hated the 2009 film as it just pissed all over the story. Thoroughly enjoyed Into Darkness - though granted I might have been more accepting of the fact that it is a reboot. I think the nods were quite good.

Slydice

Saw it today on the iMax in 3D. Really enjoyed it. Agree that Cumberbatch was really good.

As for 3D. I didn't notice 3D in a big way. They put 3D into the credits in the end. The trailer for Man of Steel had a bunch of 3D which was cool but who knows if it'll also be in the film. I'd say you'd get just as good an experience with Star Trek Into Darkness with 2D.

liamtech

It seems as though the majority of Trekkies are relatively happy with it, although quite a few do highlight that certain scenes were over stressed and generally annoying

KHAAAAAAN!, the ending with the 'dead' Kirk, etc

I personally am not a fan of this movie for many differing reasons.

I felt that it essentially ripped off plot elements from TWOK, and several other notable star trek episodes, including DS9's Homefront/Paradise Lost

I also felt that in general the plot was highly predictable from about mid-way through the film

Who DIDNT know it was Khan, when he cured the girl of the disease at the start - Who didnt cop the 'dodgy' nature of the Admiral missions and the Section 31 weapons

Even aside from these issues the plot climax was very poor

COME ON! Fighting on top of a moving ship - and saving the Enterprise by jumping into the RATHER odd looking warp core - Compared to First Contact or The undiscovered Country, the ending wasnt great

In any case my trekkie pals divided into two camps - One set think it was a serious 'Facepalm' film with cringe-worthy nods to

TOS and The Wraith of Khan

- i am part of this section

The other group argue that we are not embracing the reboot, and if we dont like it? **** *** and get a new franchise - but even they acknowledge the over stressed nods to the aforementioned Star Trek clips etc

Anyway, its not worth falling out over!:);)

Says Liamtech while arming the genesis device in order to wipe out the planet and end this plague of reboots

More opinions will be forthcoming as the days go by and trekkies everywhere get their say on the New Face of Trek

Goodshape

Loved it :-D

Saw it in Cineworld IMAX 3D. Could have done without the 3D but didn't bother me too much.

Wasn't a dull moment in it imo. There were surely bits and pieces I could nit pick as a life long Star Trek fan but you know, at the same time, not as many as the last three or four films – or the last two series.

The cast were excellent and characters well presented. I enjoyed almost all the little – and the large – "nods and winks" to old Trek. Enjoyed the story. Enjoyed the twists and glad I've had blinkers on to all speculation, previews and reviews for the past couple of weeks. Definitely some element of allowing myself to be taken along for the ride but **** it – I did, and I enjoyed it loads.

Choice between this, Voyager, enterprise, insurrection or nemesis? A thousand times this.


Reading early speculation about Cumberbatch's character, I thought that would really annoy me if true – but turns out it didn't. They actually handled it well.

Bottom line: seriously enjoyable action-heavy Trek movie. Just love those characters.

Still hope for something more exploration / science based next time but then again, the films have never been great for that.

Looking forward to seeing it again before it leaves the cinema.

Zillah

I have no problem with a Star Trek based action movie, I just think a lot of the action in this was not well-executed. I'm pretty sure - though I find it hard to believe - that the Enterprise

literally never fired a shot. All they did was fly around and then get pummeled for twenty minutes - there was action but there was no real drama/fighting

. That was kind of frustrating and its why I compare it to Insurrection.

The scene where

Cumberbatch wiped out the Klingons was really well done - and I just died laughing when he shot the weapon out of Spock's hands.

It's hard to cheer the heroes on when they do a villain that well.

Goodshape

Zillah wrote: »

I'm pretty sure - though I find it hard to believe - that the Enterprise

literally never fired a shot. All they did was fly around and then get pummeled for twenty minutes - there was action but there was no real drama/fighting

.

Hmm, I guess you're right although I never really noticed at the time. Maybe because I was sitting so close in the IMAX – second row from the front, which I thought might be awful but actually just upped the excitement, I think the film suited it – but anyway, it felt very action packed to me.

Enterprise might not have fired an actual shot but they were pretty smack-bang in the middle of the action all the same

.

The scene where

Cumberbatch wiped out the Klingons was really well done - and I just died laughing when he shot the weapon out of Spock's hands.

It's hard to cheer the heroes on when they do a villain that well.

Heh, if I were to be critical I think these are the two areas I wasn't so enthusiastically happy about. Cumberbacth was decent but

he was no Ricardo Montalban. Didn't have quite the same gravitas or charisma. Also... wrong nationality :-/. He wasn't bad, just not as good.

And the whole section with

the Klingons

felt a little wasted. Might have been the only bit where I felt it'd be better to sit a few rows back to see the full frame at once but also, if you're going to include them just for an almost throw-away scene... why even bother? Didn't really amount to anything in the end. Felt like pandering; I guess not the only time in the movie but it's the one that stuck out for me.


I just think they got the principle Enterprise crew very right. The Kirk, Spock and (lesser extent) McCoy show with the other characters helping out, like TOS should be. And the chemistry was great. Something the TNG films seriously suffered for was this 'need' to give everyone something special to do and a little arc of their own. They never handled that well enough imo. Too many characters.

Goodshape

I see IMDB page has updated with full cast and character listings. No more "rumoured".

Pity, really. Particularly as it isn't even out in the USA, or most places, yet. It might have been "obvious" to some but still, I enjoyed not knowing certain things for certain fact before they were revealed on-screen.

SarahBM

I was getting worried about going to see Into Darkness today as I had seen a lot of negative posts and tweets about it.
I lowered my expectations a bit.

But I really really enjoyed it. Not sure if I loved it as much as 2009 star trek but it was just very enjoyable.

Dont throw me off the tread or ban me, but I have havent seen Star Trek the Original series (bar an episode or two) or the Films 1-6. Im more of a TNG and Voyager fan. Loved TNG movies too. so I probably missed a lot of the in jokes etc.

I love the new characters. I think they are brilliant. there was more than one LOL moment in Into Darkness which I like and the bromance between Kirk and Spock was in full effect. Benedict Cumerbatch is an amazing actor. and wow did he beef up for this film. who knew he could be an action man?!?!

As for the film, whether there were plot/story issues or not, I loved the scenes with the actual Enterprise! Its such a cool ship. I always loved the more technical stuff about Star Trek.

I went to see it in 2D and I didnt think it was lacking anything. I saw Iron Man 3 in 3D last wk and I have to say I felt a bit queasy at times. I just dont like 3D in general.

Cant wait for the DVD now so I can watch them back to back

Knine

Not long back and I took my 10 year old daughter with me. I was worried about her being too young and low and behold I seen a couple of 6 year olds ( or so) heading in. :-)

I loved it, plenty of action and not a dull moment. My 10 year old only recently introduced to Star Trek was amazed and wants to watch TOS dvds. I think she is converted.

knucklehead6

Knine wrote: »

Not long back and I took my 10 year old daughter with me. I was worried about her being too young and low and behold I seen a couple of 6 year olds ( or so) heading in. :-)

I loved it, plenty of action and not a dull moment. My 10 year old only recently introduced to Star Trek was amazed and wants to watch TOS dvds. I think she is converted.

Not converted. Just awakened!! ;-)

Knine

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Not converted. Just awakened!! ;-)

Yes very true. Now do I just let her loose with TOS and give her a shock at how old fashioned it is or any suggestions?

Ps my litter of puppies due in two weeks will all have Star Trek show names.

Ray Palmer

Is there anywhere I get get the low down on actors and characters on the bridge?

Curious about the deep voiced guy and who the actress was who played the black ensign with the shaved head

Klingon Hamlet

Major spoilers so I'll make sure to block them all out:

The year is 2259AD, 7 years before TOS. Disregarding any changes in the timeline post NARADA / KELVIN space-battle in Trek 2009...

John Harrison/Khan was from "300 years" ago according to Bones. Meaning approx 1959? or are they assuming the 1996 year quoted in Wrath of Khan still applies? And 300 was an approx figure? And Khan...was a super-secret war criminal sent to space for no good reason?

Why were

Khan and Carol Marcus British? Instead of American / Indian?

Why would

Admiral Marcus keep, alongside the models of the PHOENIX, NX-01 and KELVIN, a clear display of the VENGEANCE if it's a top secret, Section 31 warship designed by a war criminal?

Why wouldn't

Admiral Marcus simply kill off Khan's people independently of firing the torps at Kronos?

What was the shattered

moon orbiting Kronos? Praxis? Why was it exploded 30 years too early? Praxis explodes in 2293 in the Original Timeline. Doesn't that mean the Klingons are dying already?

Why did

Daystrom Institute, the hive-mind of the most brilliant scientists and tech in Starfleet, remain unsecured by airships? Why would they have armed guards about the place but no air support? how many people died when Khan's battle shuttle spun to the ground after Kirk attacked?

Where did Kirk and co get the

unmarked, unidentifiable battle-pod to swoop down to Kronos intending to kill Khan? I presume it's unmarked---otherwise if it were Starfleet-issue, it would've blown their cover. it wasn't Section 31 equipment---Marcus wanted khan killed via the torpedoes.

How did Spock

SKYPE Old Spock if communications were down? if they weren't why didn't he simply contact Earth instead for support? Also, didn't the cameo render the new crew inept, as if they couldn't figure out a tyrant if he sat on their heads? (I can see Nicholas Meyer shaking his head in dismay...)

As per the

previous movie, where were Earth's defenses? NO STARSHIPS ANYWHERE??? Where was Spacedock and its many docked ships? Where was Moonbase etc?

If Kirk

got a complete transfusion from Khan, how is Khan still alive? Is Kirk now as strong/intelligent? Is Khan normal or near-death? Why keep him and his pals frozen if they represent a clear threat?

When Kirk

decided he was no longer able for command, thus making his Hero's Journey a downward spiral with no redemption besides resigning himself to dying saving the ship---noble, but no leader, just a selfless hero unsure of himself anymore---how did he suddenly regrow his cajones and assume command of the new, five-year-mission?

Also, the

VENGEANCE looked terrifying in the trailer but it sounded like an RC aeroplane when it zipped along warp space behind the ENTERPRISE and clipped her back into normalspace. yes she delivered wham-bams but she wasn't intimidating, just messyand exploded far too easily...and HOW did she sail into Earth's atmosphere at the exact same trajectory? And why?? Why did Khan "flee" to Earth, the planet that wanted him dead?

There are so many other things wrong... like Scotty

sayng the exat same "Better get down here..." dialogue

, Spock pulling an

emo version of KHAAAAAAAAN, to himself, rather than Kirk's furious roar at his nemesis in the original

...

The whole universe open to four writers, and they let us down with this unimaginative drivel. The first half was a real eye-opener, a new angle at what the crew might become, and then boom---

fan-fiction at its worst.

Total failure. Bye JJ. Please take your hack-writers with you. Bring back Nicholas Meyer. the cast are very talented. Give them an equally talented script and story. Benedict---well-played, solid work, but he got shafted IMHO.

Barely in it, did far too little, wasn't the real conqueror Khan, just a reptitlian grinning version, not the warrior-king he should have been...

Imagine...

Khan aboard the cloaked VENGEANCE (Cos that should've happened), announcing across the diverse cities of the Federation, his role as leader of mankind. His breaking into Daystrom Labs and creating his own powerful Eugenics Army...his transwarp strike squads beginning the culling of non-humans...his hacking into the federation grid and manually controlling Starships, creating a hellish armada, beginning a potential war with the Klingons...and all that stands in the way is the one ship outside his reach, the ENTERPRISE returning from her first 5 yr mission...her captain a little rough from his last fateful mission...the crew, emboldened, a family against the darkness. THAT would've had all the splashy action audiences craved AND a Khan worth seeing.

Not this crap. End of rant.

Klingon Hamlet

Knine wrote: »

Not long back and I took my 10 year old daughter with me. I was worried about her being too young and low and behold I seen a couple of 6 year olds ( or so) heading in. :-)

I loved it, plenty of action and not a dull moment. My 10 year old only recently introduced to Star Trek was amazed and wants to watch TOS dvds. I think she is converted.

I must be overprotective ha cos I couldn't let my little one watch as

Khan---admittedly off-screen---pulverised a man's skull slowly and hammer-kicked a woman's leg so it snapped

FutureGuy

Klingon Hamlet, it seems you have spent so much time nitpicking at it that it has lost all meaning for you.

While I do agree with some of your minor points, especially the one relating to the

model of the Vengence

, a lot of your gripes seem to stem from not listening to what was being said in the film. You seem to have missed blatant explanations for many of your gripes.

An equal number of gripes seem to be due to the fact that you are annoyed that certain instances did not happen identically in both universes!

And finally, you insult the second half of the film as being akin to fan fic and then you come up with a boring, lame and quite frankly, more in line with fan fic than the film you are clearly insulting.

Goodshape

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Not this crap. End of rant.

Don't mince words, Bones Klingon Hamlet. What do you really think?

Antar Bolaeisk

Anyone else find it amusing that Peter Weller got to come back to Star Trek to play another terrorist?

It was a pretty decent movie, equal parts enjoyable and daft.

I thought the inverting of Kirk and Spock's roles was a neat idea (though who thought Spock yelling Khan, especially without it echoing through space, was a good idea) but I think it would have been more interesting had they left Kirk dead

. There's many things wrong with the film, so it's best not to think too deeply on them, but it's probably the smartest of the dumb action films this year.

Something trivial to get annoyed about now, for a couple of minutes I was thinking well done filmmakers for finding a way around the bad make-up Klingons. I could completely see Klingons using helmets like that to mask their dishonour for looking like muddied humans. This was afterall one of the major gripes with Enterprise when it first aired, a problem they went to great pains to fix with a three-parter (involving genetically engineered super-humans no less) only for this film to come along and completely ignore continuity, again. Grrr. Oh, they also misspelled Qo'noS.

goose2005

Goodshape wrote: »

And the whole section with

the Klingons

felt a little wasted. Might have been the only bit where I felt it'd be better to sit a few rows back to see the full frame at once but also, if you're going to include them just for an almost throw-away scene... why even bother? Didn't really amount to anything in the end. Felt like pandering; I guess not the only time in the movie but it's the one that stuck out for me.

I suppose it's to establish them for the next movie

Stabshauptmann

Goodshape wrote: »

I see IMDB page has updated with full cast and character listings. No more "rumoured".

Pity, really. Particularly as it isn't even out in the USA, or most places, yet. It might have been "obvious" to some but still, I enjoyed not knowing certain things for certain fact before they were revealed on-screen.

THEN DONT READ IMDB BEFORE WATCHING THE FILM!

Stabshauptmann

Goodshape wrote: »

I just think they got the principle Enterprise crew very right. The Kirk, Spock and (lesser extent) McCoy show with the other characters helping out, like TOS should be.

See I disagree. I dont think Kirk is anything like TOS, in this movie or the last one. It bugged me a lot in 2009, but I could enjoy this film only after I continuously reminded myself its not the real Kirk.

TBH, it irks me slightly that impudent children are flying around on the flag ship. I don't remember Kirk being so

blase vis-a-vis the prime directive

The characters they got "right" (remembering it is a reboot) for me would be Bones and Scotty.

Kiith

You realise that this isn't the Kirk from the original series right? Is it so hard to believe that someone would be quite different if their father had been killed on the day of their birth, rather then having him alive and a major influence on most of his decisions though the early stage of his life?

Goodshape

Yeah, I really didn't have a problem with Kirk at all. And the chemistry between himself and Spock is as solid – if not, I dare say, better – than ever.

Also, timeline changes not withstanding, these are (for the most part) the same people we've seen before responding to similar situations. It's not such a stretch to imagine they would respond in similar ways. Thinking of certain scenes / dialogue towards the end of the film here.

Goodshape

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

THEN DONT READ IMDB BEFORE WATCHING THE FILM!

It's "just" a credit listing though. Pretty rare that would constitute a spoiler. In this case I count two pretty big ones :-/

touts

Speaking as someone for whom The Wrath of Khan, with it's older more experienced crew, was my introduction to Star Trek and is still my favourite and where my initial TV experience was with a bald, middle aged Picard as captain I really liked Into Darkness. Personally I still prefer the characters being older and I still think the new Kirk, Sulu, Uhura and Chekov look like kids. The new Spock and Bones are well cast but Scotty.... dear god.... But all that aside I still liked the vast majority of Into Darkness.

I didn't know anything about it before walking into the cinema but as I watched it I really liked the fact that midway it became clear it was

in effect a remake of TWOK and once that little facade was down they went all out and directly ripped off some scenes (from blatant ones like the death scene to blink and you miss them, ones like Khan falling onto the Navigation Consol as his ship is hit by explosions. You could see some lines coming a mile off (The ship? Out of Danger..) but it was all the better for that.

but I can see how it would annoy some people.

The one part I really have a problem with is the way

they brought Kirk back to life. Killing off a major character is always a difficult decision but bringing him back to life is rarely done well. Perhaps had they killed off Sulu or Scotty or even Bones and left them dead that would have been a more powerful ending. Remember at the end of TWOK Spock was dead. OK they hinted at what was to come but taken in isolation he was dead dead dead and the film was all the stronger for it. But at the end of the day at least JJ Abrams found a way to close that story line without the need for two AWFUL films and a couple of ****ing Whales.

You can nitpick flaws in it and there were many as some people have pointed out earlier. But on balance Into Darkness is a film I'd be more than happy to pay to watch again and there are few of the other Star Trek films I could say that about (I'll probably be shot for saying so on here).

azezil

Can't believe no one has mentioned the contrails in space!? That makes no sense what so ever! And lots of other little things that were just plain wrong, like Earth to Qo'oS in 10seconds for example >_<

It's like he didn't bother to take the time to get to know the "facts" about Star Trek "physics" at all and just went for some quasi Star Wars like techno-fantasy. :rolleyes:

novarock

Another longtime fan, I grew up watching it, I even like Star Trek V...

It annoys me greatly reading through the responses above. People go on like they 'own' Star Trek, or like its an ex-girlfriend or something. The man was tasked with bringing a long standing, dying franchise back to life. Lets all face it, the last time Star Trek was truly good was Deep Space Nine. To do that he needed to re-invent the characters, and re-invent the universe they live in. He was hardly going to re-create the old storylines, just with better effects.

I walked out of that movie with my wife (she had never watched old trek at all, but loved the last one) and said I regretted not getting her to

watch TWOK before that movie, as I really didnt see the little twists coming from the trailers

. She watched it since and loved it by the way. The point being that this new popcorn Star Trek is going to create a new generation of fans to keep what you all love going on a bit longer. The two new films build the characters with a great similarity to the characters of the 60's and 80's. The have the same idiosyncrasies, mannerisms etc..

Now the new generation gets to watch TWOK and see where JJ Abrams took his influence from, as opposed to them thinking that it was a dated film with terrible special effects. Now they will have an attachment to the characters, albeit way older, and a different type of actor, and watch the films from a new perspective.

I for one welcome our new bespectacled overlord. 8/10

novarock

azezil wrote: »

Can't believe no one has mentioned the contrails in space!? That makes no sense what so ever! And lots of other little things that were just plain wrong, like Earth to Qo'oS in 10seconds for example >_<

It's like he didn't bother to take the time to get to know the "facts" about Star Trek "physics" at all and just went for some quasi Star Wars like techno-fantasy. :rolleyes:

This is nitpicking, In the however many iterations of Star Trek there has been a different image to what warp speed looks like... case in point below... Does this make better sense in terms of physics?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-cOsbIv2iA

SarahBM

cringe at the kirk wink.

I like the "new" warp graphic. I think its cool.

Daith

Really enjoyed it. I felt this is what Insurrection should have been.

I could have done without

The Kahn stuff. No reason why it couldn't have just been Section 31. Though I did do an inner squeal when the area was revealed as Section 31. I was half expecting the Admiral's ship to end up being similar to the Defiant as the Federations warship.

liamtech

@Touts

Obviously star trek is not an ex-girlfriend (If it were i would never be allowed to watch it )!

But in all honesty as someone who has watched it since i was 4, it is something that matters to me. For the record i dont think

star trek 3 or 4 were awful, in fact quite the opposite

But regardless i personally didnt like it, while my girlfriend who has never seen star trek beyond the 2009 movie, thought it was fantastic

I think this is where some have a problem, and i acknowledge that it is a minority of fans including myself. Im a serious fan who has spent probably in the region of 1000s of euros/pounds on the franchise, including VHS, DVD's, Blu-Rays, badges, collectables etc etc. Star Trek was a franchise that made sense, at least within its own continuity - scientifically within Trek there were things you could AND couldnt do - technical manuals. scientific explanations of the possibilities - it represented an attempt at bringing a minimal HARD science fiction to a wide audience, and it worked. A lot of fans didnt follow this element but they none the less went away from an episode or film having enjoyed themselves.

Hard science fiction, that made (some) sense, appears to be dead. So be it. Il happily accept that new movies and films of that genre will probably not make any sense in future. But if Abrams is truly remaking Trek, then in my opinion he should have left out

Khan. AN iconic villain from probably the best of the movies. The constant 'tip of the hat' moments in the new film were, at least for this fan, annoying. The plot was weak in my opinion, but the continual references to other movies pushed it from being a weak film, to one that actually angered me. No originality - this really wont do for the next star Wars film - what will he do in that? Clone Vader, the emperor is not dead, and Jar Jar is supreme chancellor!

.

Anyway feel free to call me narrow minded etc etc... This is a film for NON trekkies, Great! Enjoy it! For me im back to reading some of the novelizations and new voyages books - for me, That is star trek now

FutureGuy

liamtech wrote: »

@Touts

Obviously star trek is not an ex-girlfriend (If it were i would never be allowed to watch it )!

But in all honesty as someone who has watched it since i was 4, it is something that matters to me. For the record i dont think

star trek 3 or 4 were awful, in fact quite the opposite

But regardless i personally didnt like it, while my girlfriend who has never seen star trek beyond the 2009 movie, thought it was fantastic

I think this is where some have a problem, and i acknowledge that it is a minority of fans including myself. Im a serious fan who has spent probably in the region of 1000s of euros/pounds on the franchise, including VHS, DVD's, Blu-Rays, badges, collectables etc etc. Star Trek was a franchise that made sense, at least within its own continuity - scientifically within Trek there were things you could AND couldnt do - technical manuals. scientific explanations of the possibilities - it represented an attempt at bringing a minimal HARD science fiction to a wide audience, and it worked. A lot of fans didnt follow this element but they none the less went away from an episode or film having enjoyed themselves.

Hard science fiction, that made (some) sense, appears to be dead. So be it. Il happily accept that new movies and films of that genre will probably not make any sense in future. But if Abrams is truly remaking Trek, then in my opinion he should have left out

Khan. AN iconic villain from probably the best of the movies. The constant 'tip of the hat' moments in the new film were, at least for this fan, annoying. The plot was weak in my opinion, but the continual references to other movies pushed it from being a weak film, to one that actually angered me. No originality - this really wont do for the next star Wars film - what will he do in that? Clone Vader, the emperor is not dead, and Jar Jar is supreme chancellor!

.

Anyway feel free to call me narrow minded etc etc... This is a film for NON trekkies, Great! Enjoy it! For me im back to reading some of the novelizations and new voyages books - for me, That is star trek now

Unfortunately they are not making Star Tek for people like you (or me) anymore because, despite the fact you have spent thousands on the franchise, we account for a small fraction of the cinema-going public. Star Trek was completely dead in the water and there was no interest in it apart the die hard fans. TNG had run it's course and there is absolutely no hunger for a film from any other franchise. To be honest, even I have absolutely no interest in any movies with those crews anymore (Having said that, there would be a ton of interest in a DS9 TV movie). The TNG films had become an action series with a bunch of old actors. And I strongly feel that Nemesis was more of a b@stardization of well known characters than the new films are of Kirk and co.

So they had essenially two options. Kill canon Star Trek completely or bring in new actors to play the crew that has the most social recognition. No brainer.

But I'm delighted with the reboot. I loved the first one and I loved the second one.

For every Trek fan that is complaining that they are relying on old material, there would be one waiting to cause a ruckus if the second movie had completely no reference to TOS whatsoever.

"Why hasn't this happened??? It would have happened in the new timeline by now! It's a joke that the writers are ignoring this. They are sticking their finger up to all the Trek fans that stood by them for 40 years" etc etc etc.

My GF had never watched TOS. She loved the 2009 film but had no major interest in going back and watching the old series. After watching, and loving STID, she is now intruiged by what happened to the older crew when they faced Khan. So this morning, she asked me if we could watch Space Seed and TWOK today, followed by a trip to the cinema to rewatch STID again.

THAT'S the reaction that Paramount are looking for. We are not alone. I see many people on Facebook, Twitter and other forums who are now actively searching out Space Seed and TWOK. They want to know what happened with Kirk and Spock and Khan in the othr timeline. This material is very enjoyable, and these new vievers might become invested in the older characters. They appreciate the story, the situation and the characters and a fraction will become invested. Boom. New fans of TOS.

Personally, I loved the tips of the hat to the previous crew. But they are infinitely better if you have no knowledge of the old films. In fact, a friend of mine who is hard as nails amitted to crying at STID.

There is no way they are going to appease everyone. But they are appeasing the vast majority of the movie-going public. 90% on Rotten Tomatoes. 4/5 star reviews pretty much everywhere.

At the end of the day, Star Trek has NEVER had it this good. It's incredibly entertaining, it's energetic, it's funny, and it does all this while still dealing with real world issues BETTER than most other films.

Hoping for 2-3 more movies.

Daith

liamtech wrote: »

Anyway feel free to call me narrow minded etc etc... This is a film for NON trekkies, Great! Enjoy it! For me im back to reading some of the novelizations and new voyages books - for me, That is star trek now

I felt this film was more in tone with DS9 than anything else.

In fact DS9 went even further by actually having a military coup and not just a rogue admiral and a few others on a ship

Sad Professor

I've added a spoiler warning to the thread title to make it easier to discuss the film. So you don't have to use tags from this post onwards. Anyone who hasn't seen the film yet, stop reading!

Pepe LeFrits

Goodshape wrote: »

I see IMDB page has updated with full cast and character listings. No more "rumoured".

Pity, really. Particularly as it isn't even out in the USA, or most places, yet. It might have been "obvious" to some but still, I enjoyed not knowing certain things for certain fact before they were revealed on-screen.

meh, the reveal was pretty pointless. Instead of trying (and failing) to hide it from the audience, they should have come out with it straight from the off; the pay off when he revealed himself to Kirk would have been more enjoyable then. Instead the reveal leaves you feeling like Abrams thinks you're an idiot.

Sad Professor

Khan is so iconic that I'm not sure what the point of using him was if they didn't plan to make his identity clear from the onset. It would be like revealing some random villain as the Joker half way through a Batman film. Like the Joker in TDK, Khan could have been a valuable part of the marketing. However, when I describe Khan as iconic I'm speaking as a Star Trek fan. I guess they must have figured a lot of regular viewers wouldn't know who Khan was, making a reveal a better way to go since it doesn't assume prior knowledge of the universe - something which Abrams seems to be very wary about, perhaps rightly so.

The fact that Harrison isn't revealed as Khan until half way through the film makes sense from a story perspective since Section 31 was hardly going to use his real name. It's just a shame that the fans had to endure various denials from the writers and cast on the run-up to release. Especially as I think a lot of fans didn't want to it be Khan.

FutureGuy

KHHHHHHHAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



KHHHHHHHAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



KHHHHHHHAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Urgh waited weeks to get that out of my system....ahhhhh that's better.

Kiith

I thought it was handled really well to be honest. It was great that the trailers didn't give it away, and while i suspected it from the start (and had it confirmed as soon as he fought the Klingons), i thought it worked perfectly.